6 ms·
Corporate "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
by Semiapies 17y ago
Corporate "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...
- Semiapies 17y agoCan you please introduce me to one of these inhuman "things" that might fund a political advertisement without human decision or involvement?
- nostrademons 17y ago"A human" is different from "A group of humans".
- Semiapies 17y agoAhhh. So your fundamental objection is to political organization.
- onoj 17y agoIs the "group of humans" a democratic organization, a dictatorship or an oligarchy? Most companies are dictatorships with an oligarch of shareholders. It is really helping democracy to allow a multi-national with majority overseas shareholders to influence USA elections?
- Semiapies 17y agoMost political organizations can be similarly characterized as dictatorships with oligarchies; depending on what level you look, pretty much all of them can. Consider your last question, though: What do you mean by influence? Multi-nationals based in the US and elsewhere already had plenty of influence in various forms before this decision. Now...they can pay for commercials. They can now make blatant, public statements of support in front of American customers, roughly 40% of whom will take some degree of umbrage or offense to this no matter who they support. How does this hurt democracy?
- onoj 17y agoYes, there are many forms of influence already, lobbyists and the such. My intent was to say - there is now one more way that large multi-national entities can directly shape opinion by marketing spend. This makes the contribution of the individual without money less and the consolidation of power (influence) in the hands of those with money greater. By the people for the people moves towards "by the corporation, for the corporation".
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- ljlolel 17y agoI didn't understand your acronym USSC at first. Normally, the Supreme Court is referred to as SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). Also, you're right.
- Semiapies 17y agoIn practice, you see both: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSC
- ynniv 17y agoA Wikipedia alias counts as evidence of usage? I've never heard USSC either. Google thinks its United States Stove Company, or United States Sentencing Commission: http://www.google.com/search?q=ussc http://www.google.com/search?q=ussc
- Semiapies 17y agoWell, yes, as it's a use, it's evidence of use. I didn't exactly invent it. :) Try googling +ussc "supreme court". It's a less-used, but real initialism.
- mlinsey 17y ago"..this is a legal premise that has existed for over a century. Otherwise, you couldn't sue a company for damages." The way our particular laws have been written and interpreted by the Supreme Court, then yes, these things are indeed tied together. But there's no particular reason why one could not have a legal system with one and not the other. That's the entire point of the OP. Why exactly is unrestricted freedom of speech a necessary condition for corporate immunity? Assume you are building a constitution from scratch: Can you construct an argument for why you can't have corporate immunity without corporate freedom of speech, without referring to existing US case law?
- Semiapies 17y ago"That's the entire point of the OP." The OP is talking about an election in the US, not about some ex nihilo society. I find your questions rather confused; you may wish to research the issue further.
- mlinsey 17y agoThe OP is making a (toungue-in-cheek) argument against corporate free speech. You said that corporate free speech rests upon a century of precedent and that without it, we couldn't have corporate immunity. But "corporate immunity and corporate free speech come from the same legal doctrine" is a lot different from saying "you can't have corporate immunity without corporate free speech". The latter is what you said, but your argument supports the former. Are you sure I'm the one who is confused?
- Semiapies 17y agoa lot different from saying "you can't have corporate immunity without corporate free speech" I'm not actually saying that, despite your misunderstanding. Beyond that, I'm not interested in discussing built-from-scratch legal systems.
- mlinsey 17y agoWell, I think that's far and away the most obvious interpretation of your second paragraph, but it's ambiguous enough that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you're saying that's not what you meant. Your last sentence surprised me, though. Clean-slate thought experiments are useful to figure out whether you're doing something because it's the best way to do it, or just because of legacy. That goes for both code and law. In particular, some of the other critics of the Citizens United decision, including ones who are a little more serious and a little less playful than the OP, are talking about a long-term campaign for a constitutional amendment to address this issue (I'm in particular talking about Larry Lessig and Change Congress, but there are others). Such efforts might be political longshots, but how do you engage in discussions with them if you don't want to consider all the ways the law could be radically different, or could have evolved entirely differently?
- Dryw 17y agoBut corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations. The human beings are free to do that on their own. They don't need to speak through the corporations. Corporations are businesses. They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions. They do not require free speech.
- Semiapies 17y agoYou say "But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations", but then you say, "They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions". Both of your claims can't be true. EDIT: Sorry, down-voters, they can't both be true. Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities.
- mseebach 17y agoThe argument is that when corporations speak, they speak with the voice of the owners of that corporation, and that the amplification the corporation provides is somehow unjustified. Not that this is any different from anything a company does. No matter how much freedom each employee has, they have no freedom to act against the interest of their employer.
- Semiapies 17y ago"The argument is that when corporations speak, they speak with the voice of the owners of that corporation, and that the amplification the corporation provides is somehow unjustified." I wish people would honestly make that argument instead of resorting to the prior ridiculous rhetoric. "Not that this is any different from anything a company does." Or any organization.
- joubert 17y agoYou're wrong. A company's management speaks on behalf of the company. And not always in the interest of the shareholders, and definitely never in the interest of all the shareholders.
- _pius 17y agoand yet oddly, you don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship" Right, and it takes about half a second of thought to figure out why. And no it's not because of the "liberal media"; it's because unions don't typically have billions of dollars they can use to further their agenda.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoThe UAW takes in about a third of a billion dollars a year in union dues. So does the NEA. Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor.
- _pius 17y agoThe UAW takes in about a third of a billion dollars a year in union dues ... Drops in the bucket compared to what their corporate issue adversaries take in. For instance, the minimum revenues of any Fortune 500 company right now is measured in the billions (profits at around half a billion). Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor. And you can say the exact same thing about corporate interests (both individual corporations and their "unions" of trade associations). The only difference is that corporate interests have literally orders of magnitude more money available to pursue their agenda, as well as a disproportionate set of connections in Washington.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoSo individuals (such as George Soros) don't have billions of dollars or a disproportionate set of connections? The UAW and NEA don't have a disproportionate set of connections in DC? Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. Indeed, donations from education interests just barely exceeded those from the entire pharmaceutical industry during that same period (note that this includes soft-money contributions as well). The situation does not appear to be quite as unbalanced as you would suggest.
- uuilly 17y agoNicely put. It's also worth remembering that the first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." Neither individuals nor corporations are mentioned nor do they matter. What matters is that Congress was expressly denied the right to regulate speech.
- lmkg 17y agoCorporations aren't mentioned because they didn't exist yet. A literal reading, or a reading appealing to framer's intent (from either side) is futile, because it tries to put a lot of meaning onto what is effectively an accident of syntax and style that was, at the time, meaningless. This is not to say that your conclusion must be invalid, just that this line of reasoning is suspect.
- Perceval 17y agoCorporations have been in existence in Western culture since at least the high middle ages. Corporations existed in the Americas since before the American Revolution was even an idea. The Hudson's Bay Corporation is the oldest commercial corporation in North America and one of the oldest in the world, incorporated in 1670, over 100 years before the American Revolution and 120 years before the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights ratified. One of the U.S. founding fathers--Benjamin Franklin--was an entrepreneur and businessman, and he used his position as a businessman to engage in all sorts of (often underhanded) political pamphleteering and advocacy. Corporations most certainly did exist, and without a doubt engaged in political activity. While the doctrine of corporate personhood and the equivalence between money and speech are later inventions, it's not clear that the founders would have supported a reading of the Constitution that allows bans on corporate (or any other) political speech. Especially since it was common practice at the time, and continued to be a practice after the ratification of the Constitution.
- run4yourlives 17y agoOtherwise, you couldn't sue a company for damages. Deep down, I think this is the issue that many have a problem with: Shareholders aren't responsible for the actions of this entity. I would love to see some more work done on attaching the legal liability of corporations to individuals that are subject to full and proper citizenship. Yes I realize what I'm saying, I think it's ultimately unethical to suggest otherwise though. This is already the case for most small businesses. (sole proprietors)
- rms 17y agoThe recent SCOTUS decision was indeed correct if precedent is to be taken into account. However, I think 100 years of bad legal precedent and the status quo has blinded you (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) towards the real issue. Corporate personhood might be a red herring on the actual issue of campaign finance reform, but it is one of the most important issues facing our civilization and this Supreme Court decision is drawing needed attention to the underlying issue. It is a legal accident that corporate personhood was established in the first place. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corp... While corporations are not flesh and blood people, we as humans can certainly define intangible entities into existence. They are still made up of people, but that does not diminish the realness of an entity created only by our civilization's power of words and ideas. I think people should have rights; not inanimate entities. I think corporate personhood is one of the most egregious mistakes ever committed by humanity as it has allowed living people to no longer be accountable for their crimes. I also think it's too late to fix -- if the USA eliminated corporate personhood, the stock market would crash and there would be a mass exodus of corporations to more business friendly countries. It's not a hopeless situation though; there will continue to be restrictions on the rights of corporations. I'm optimistic that Congress is going to overturn this most recent Supreme Court decision. We could be doing more. As an important first step, I suggest a drastically increased use of the corporate death penalty, starting with multiple-time convicted felon (and statistical mass-murderer) Pfizer. If Pfizer was a flesh and blood person, it would be spending a very long time in prison. Instead, it has only paid some of the largest criminal settlements in DoJ history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer
- Semiapies 17y ago"I think corporate personhood is one of the most egregious mistakes ever committed by humanity" I think you need to look more deeply into the history of human mistakes. I'm not sure how to further answer you and similarly-concerned people in the larger sense, though. Of all the legal and political problems in the US, I consider the issue of corporate personhood to be deeply trivial, and I'm dismayed and angered that people would restrict the free speech of actual human beings out of fear of a legal fiction.
- eagleal 17y agoDistopian view: Now Google can fight China with armies. And so can Microsoft|Apple fight Apple|Microsoft
- eagleal 17y agoWhy the downvote?* Some satire never hurts. But ... a corporation it's not a person it's a legal rappresentation of the people organization. Sometimes (almost always) big corporations are the business of congress man, or at least they are in the interest of those. So you have this congress were people vote, and the same people vote also trough a corporation, for the benefit of their monopoly. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia