12 ms·
Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress
- adelevie 17y agoIf the corporation is under 35 years of age, it can't run for president. Sorry, startups!
- sophacles 17y agoCorporations aren't natural born, and therefore can never be president. Although if we repeal the natural born requirement we can finally see Arnold run against Cyberdyne (and this time its for the presidency!...).
- Goronmon 17y agoNo Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. I'm pretty sure all you have to prove is that a corporation isn't a "person" or a "citizen".
- sophacles 17y agoFirst of all, the whole point of the company doing this is that coporations are persons according to the law. I know nothing of citizenship of corporations. Second, I was replying to the poster talking about presidency, not to the company's bid for congress. The relevant bits for president are No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; The specific word being natural. The basis for corporations being granted personhood the same as a human being is the lack of the word natural in the relevant bits of the US constitution.
- Goronmon 17y agoAre you sure it's that they "are" persons or just they are considered to have rights similar to the rights a person has? Seems like a pretty important distinction.
- sophacles 17y agoCorporations are legal persons. This is not the same a human beings which are natural persons. The defining issues in corporate law came from the anti-slavery amendments to the US constitution. All hinged around the usage of the term natural person vs the term person. Edit: this means that the generic person covers both natural persons and legal persons
- potatolicious 17y ago> "I'm pretty sure all you have to prove is that a corporation isn't a "person" or a "citizen"." All of this really sounds like a lazy engineer inherited from the wrong class...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jonursenbach 17y agoYou don't say.
- dantheman 17y agoFlagged This is so stupid, people don't understand that groups of people should have the same rights as individuals. The campaign finance laws disallow small groups and small companies to buy advertisements expressing their opinions while allow large groups and companies to setup PACS to do it.
- ericd 17y agoCare to justify that opinion that a company deserves the same rights as an individual? A company generally greatly magnifies the will of a single person, or a very small group of people, making their voice much stronger than that of a common citizen. This concentration of power in the hands of a corporate elite, combined with the rights of a citizen presents the opportunity for the creation of an oligarchy of corporate elites that effectively sway the decisions of many citizens. This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoA company does not have free speech or any other rights, but it's shareholders have the right to use their company for speech. Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you). If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers like the NYT?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- chrischen 17y ago> Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you). But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions, when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve individual people and to make sure that every person gets an equal voice in government. Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and sales. !!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!! Contrast it with an organization designed to emphasize a certain agenda by collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that interest is directly correlated to its demand.
- jsm386 17y agoFor a second I thought The Times was republishing a story that The Onion posted today: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al... "This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "
- byrneseyeview 17y agoI hope this kind of thing illustrates the absurdity of democracy in general. For a company to have influence, it needs to accumulate money, which means it needs to make customers happy or convince investors that it can do so. For a voter to have influence, they have to survive for eighteen years and then find their way to a polling place.
- westbywest 17y agoThis is a straw man, since the federal gov't is a republic rather than a strict democracy. And what would you propose as alternative to permitting everyone living in this country long enough to reach adulthood to cast their their own vote?
- InclinedPlane 17y agoWithout the ability to have a robust, open political debate voting is meaningless as no voter would have context for their vote (unless they happened to personally know both candidates).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- aarongough 17y agoSurely this is a joke, or at least a publicity stunt... "Now that democracy is truly for sale, Murray Hill Incorporated are offering top dollar..."
- aarongough 17y agoWhy the downvotes? The quote above is directly taken from the campaign video provided on the linked website.
- grellas 17y agoWhy, when something becomes politically animated, do standards tend to be lowered? HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument, has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree" (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?) The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages." There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such as name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully reasoned refutations. Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights - therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office." Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and "contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.") I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position. My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?
- coffeemug 17y agoIt isn't a joke. It's a very serious legal precedent that, if pushed hard enough, can go all the way to Supreme Court (which would most likely reject the case, letting the last decision stand). It is an excellent example of a serious issue with case-based law, as practiced within the U.S. It's a hack, and it's designed to demonstrate both the absurdity of the Supreme Court's decision when taken to a logical extreme, and the limitations of our legal system. It's also very clever. The fact that it is satirical in nature is only of cursory interest.
- jsyedidia 17y agoEverybody seems to argue about this issue without ever referring to the text of the first amendment, which is what the majority of the Supreme Court based its decision on. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." To me, it seems pretty obvious that by passing McCain-Feingold, Congress had made a law "abridging the freedom of speech." It should not be surprising that it was ruled unconstitutional.
- mbreese 17y agoBut the freedom of speech isn't absolute. It never has been and never will be. There are certain limits to it, and it's up to Congress to establish those limits. (It's also up to the SCOTUS to make sure Congress doesn't go too far). In the decision, the question wasn't "does this prohibit the freedom of speech", it was "does a corporation have the freedom of speech" in the first place. The argument could be reframed (based upon my limited reading of the decision) as "Does a person have the freedom to hear the speech of a corporation?". In this case, yes, they do. But they don't have to listen to it. And this is where I think there is still some play with McCain-Feingold in that perhaps it could be reworked to include a ban on corporations to use broadcast media w/in 30 days of an election. They could put up a website, print pamphlets, etc... but just not use a passive medium for their message.
- CWuestefeld 17y agothe question wasn't "does this prohibit the freedom of speech", it was "does a corporation have the freedom of speech" in the first place. No, that wasn't it. The question was, "when acting in concert as a corporate body, do people retain their freedom of speech". Nobody has shown a compelling reason why people acting together shouldn't have the same rights as each of us has individually.
- crux_ 17y agoThe limited liability granted to corporations is an excellent reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as a person. After all, they don't have the same responsibilities. But a more basic reason is that a corporation is not a person! It's not a group of people, either, or they would call it a collective, co-op, or a partnership -- it is its own thing and there is no inherent reason whatsoever why it should have any rights at all, including the right to exist except as explicitly allowed by law.
- mivok 17y agoOne of the best comments I saw on the page was that, if one person has the right to free speech, then groups of people also have a right to free speech. However, it also seems clear to me that if one person can have a seat in congress, multiple people can't have that seat. This argument would allow the courts to strike this down while keeping the Citizens United decision in full force.
- bballant 17y agoI love it when The Onion predicts real life and reminds us how absurd things can be: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al...
- kevingadd 17y agoGiven that corporations are directly accountable to their shareholders, I wouldn't be amazed if this actually turned out to be a better model than the current one (where a congressman gets elected and can basically do whatever they want until the next election without immediate consequences). </half-joking>
- ubernostrum 17y agoWhy is there a persistent assumption that a politician accountable to voters is under less pressure than a corporate director accountable to shareholders? Both are elected periodically, and both must use their terms in office to do, or attempt to do, things desired of them by the people who elected them. And, to be perfectly honest, I think you'll find that self-serving behavior, corruption and malfeasance are just as common in corporations as in politics.
- pyre 17y agoMaybe, but it's probably easier to lead a shareholder revolt against a corporate board of directors and/or CEO than to oust an entrenched Congressperson/Senator. Re-election is 98% guaranteed once you're in office (I pulled the number out of my ass, but I know that the number is high; i.e. somewhere between 90%-100%).
- jerf 17y agoI decided to fact-check you, and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the... , "In recent years this [incumbent reelection rate] rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle." So, uh, consider your fact duly checked. :)
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- byrneseyeview 17y agoBecause corporations are immortal. Their stock price is based on the net present value of all future profits they earn, which is why a company can suppress short-term profits and still have their stock price go up (by, e.g., investing extra in R&D). Politicians are mortal, but, worse than that, their political "assets" can be taken away if they don't have high enough approval. Basically, politicians have an artificially high discount rate; they put a huge premium on certain benefit now over possible benefit later, because they won't be around for the "later". Corporations have the lowest possible discount rate, because the people who end up owning them (i.e. those who value the stock the most) are the people with the lowest discount rate at that point in time.
- waterlesscloud 17y agoThis sort of thing depresses me. The vast majority of people don't understand the SCOTUS decision, or even know what it was really about, or what the basis for the decision was. Furthermore, few seem to understand what the concept of a corporation having some of the legal attributes of a person is about, and how it has almost nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision. And you see the constant misinformation that corporations are legally obligated to follow whatever path leads to the most profit. It's just depressing how little people understand about the society they live in.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- eddie_catflap 17y agoIt reminded me of the (excellent) Charles Stross book Accelerando. Let's face it, it's the next step. We're just marking time till someone builds a Matrioshka brain around the Sun anyway.
- Semiapies 17y agoCorporate "citizenship" is a complete red herring in this issue. This is not some crazy new doctrine the USSC shat out this year, this is a legal premise that has existed for over a century. Otherwise, you couldn't sue a company for damages. The issue is about political speech for actual human beings in organizations, including corporations and labor unions (and yet oddly, you don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship"). Crying out "ZOMG giving corporations rights!" is nothing more than trying to short-circuit others' thinking.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoIt's disturbing to me how easily some people's absurd hatred of corporations in the abstract can override even the most dearly held liberties in the western world (such as freedom of speech). The recently overturned campaign finance law was a horrendous attack on free speech. Something as simple as posting about a local candidate on your personal blog could have been considered a campaign contribution in kind, falling under the regulation and restrictions of said law. And that's hardly the most egregious aspect. As the saying goes, those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve (and receive) neither. In the same manner those who sacrifice liberty toward reducing corruption in government deserve (and receive) neither.
- Semiapies 17y agoPeople like to think those sorts of restrictions affect only the big players, when it's more the reverse - the largest companies have the most resources to devote to carefully jumping through legal hoops.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoOr finding ways around the legal hoops.
- nostrademons 17y ago"Something as simple as posting about a local candidate on your personal blog could have been considered a campaign contribution in kind, falling under the regulation and restrictions of said law." [citation needed]. People have always been able to speak out in favor of their preferred candidates - that's what free speech is about. AFAIUI, the recent SCOTUS decision concerned: 1. What happens when there was an exchange of money for political speech on behalf of a third party, eg. paying someone for advertisements. 2. What happens when the "person" paying that money is not a person, but a corporation. There's a big difference between somebody speaking out on their own and somebody paying for advertisement. There's a further difference between somebody paying for advertisement and something paying for advertisement. I'll elaborate if you wish, but I'd assume this should be fairly clear to most people...
- guelo 17y agoShouldn't FDA/FTC regulations on things like product labeling and false advertising be ruled unconstitutional? Isn't a corporation's free speech being violated when they aren't allowed to lie about their product?
- Perceval 17y agoFree speech protections for individuals don't protect us against prosecution for making fraudulent claims or certain types of lies (e.g. libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, perjury, and so on). Why would a right to free speech protect corporations for making fraudulent or otherwise endangering statements about their products?
- guelo 17y agoSo you're saying we already have reasonable exceptions to the first amendment to protect society from behavior deemed objectionable as determined by congress? Kind of like when congress decided that corporations should be kept of the political process.
- ubulgaria 17y agoWell, if campaign contributions are limited (to level the playing field) then a company's expenditures should be using the campaign contribution allowance of its shareholders.
- tokenadult 17y agoText of the Supreme Court opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
- amohr 17y agoMoney line: "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
- noonespecial 17y agoAhh, so we're finally cutting out the middle-man then. Nice.
- aik 17y agoThis seriously must be a joke. Isn't it? From their website: "Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an emerging new market. The campaign’s designated human, Eric Hensal, will help the corporation conform to antiquated “human only” procedures and sign the necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new opportunity. “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.”" This seems like mockery to me.
- sorbus 17y agoThe campaign video makes it pretty clear that this is satire; I find it a bit disturbing that people seem to be taking it seriously. ... on the other hand, if it isn't satire, I am extremely scared.
- joubert 17y agoDoes this mean foreign corporations can also run for our Congress? That would be fucking insane.
- joubert 17y agoI'm curious. Are people more offended by the expletive than they are concerned about the possibility that foreign companies can run for actual seats in Congress?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jacoblyles 17y agoCheap partisan fair. The gas station hotdog of political commentary.
- joubert 17y agoI wonder what McCain makes of this. He's been flip-flopping quite a bit recently.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- indu 17y agoTalk about cutting out the middle man.
- elblanco 17y agoIf only we had words that differentiated a person from a corporation.
- known 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
- trunnell 17y agoI'm very disappointed with the comments I see on this thread. I think the problem many people have with Citizens United v. FEC is that it opens the door to political activity that seems counter to our long held principal of one man, one vote. I don't think anyone has a problem with a group of people pooling their resources with the intent to run campaign ads on a given topic or candidate. That's basic democratic activity. The problem occurs when resources are highly concentrated in an individual such that he can drown out the voice of others. The natural tradeoff in capitalism is between efficiency and equality: resources are deployed efficiently but the gains are distributed unequally. Capital owners necessarily benefit the most from capitalism. Businesses generally own the most capital in our system; there are a few billionaire individuals, but the vast majority of billionaires are corporations. So in a campaign system where money buys voter attention, the loudest and most attention-getting speakers will tend to be corporations. These speakers who have disproportionate influence have the ability to control political discourse based more on the size of their megaphone than on the quality of their ideas. This should be troubling to anyone who values enlightenment-era principles like the best ideas winning on their own merits via rational discourse. In practice, greater influence imbues additional voting power in these speakers, both through direct leverage with Congressional representatives as well as through the power to dominate the airwaves at election time. Large corporations don't have just a few times more influence, they have 3-6 orders of magnitude more influence than the average individual. They meet directly with Senators. When was the last time you had a personal meeting with your Senator? This is what people mean when they complain that companies can "buy elections" or "buy legislation." I think everyone would agree that this is already occurring. Witness the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act, brought to you by the Disney Corporation. Very few legal scholars would argue that this legislation was in the public interest. Citizens United opens the door to even greater corporate influence in our political discourse. Many people believe it will only worsen this situation of vastly unequal participation in our democracy.
- trunnell 17y agoLawrence Lessig sums it up better than I can: The point is simple, if extraordinarily difficult for those of us proud of our traditions to accept: this democracy no longer works. Its central player has been captured. Corrupted. Controlled by an economy of influence disconnected from the democracy. Congress has developed a dependency foreign to the framers' design. Corporate campaign spending, now liberated by the Supreme Court, will only make that dependency worse. "A dependence" not, as the Federalist Papers celebrated it, "on the People" but a dependency upon interests that have conspired to produce a world in which policy gets sold. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig