6 ms·

And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any a

by bmelton 11y ago

And this is why ultimately I agree with the decision in Citizens United. If my bill rate is $200 an hour, then it's possible to put a financial amount on any activity I do in support of a candidate. If they did that, then we would just get the usual brinksmanship (assuming a cap), and I might be "too wealthy" to contribute time to the candidate I support. Contrarily, if I'm just as passionate about a candidate, and have more money than programming skills, I'm happy to contribute that instead. It was a long road for me before I accepted the argument that money equals speech, but if actions are, then it isn't a big jump for me to suggest that the payment for my actions ought to be as well, and if I made a short film in support of a candidate, I can't see any way possible of doing that for free.

conical 11y ago
Every citizen has one vote and 24 hours in a day to allocate to supporting a candidate (bounded by the obvious). Speech has much more in common with time than it does money.
weatherlight 11y ago
Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.
- ageek123 11y ago
  Legal recognition of corporations as people long pre-dated Citizens United: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
- bmelton 11y ago
  I disagree 1) that they are, and 2) that they oughtn't be allowed to be for what you're intending. On 1) They aren't persons, but do have a limited degree of personhood. Among other things, that personhood is what allows us to sue them and such. On 2) I don't have a problem with it. If companies have to abide the law, then I can't imagine how it would be that they shouldn't have input into its making. I agree that corporate influence is a real problem, but would personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers is a better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That said, this debate is getting into the 'purely political' territory, and is probably not a great fit for an HN discussion.
  - pasquinelli 11y ago
    a corporation isn't a democratic institution, so the wealth that's generated by all the people in that corporation is only available for use by the owners of that corporation. the money everyone generates only amplifies the voice of those people that own the corporation. if a corporation is a democratic institution, with equal influence and participation of all members of it, then i agree there's no problem. that isn't the case for most corporations.
  - zbyte64 11y ago
    > better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That's the crux of the problem though. People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Those that own a corporation have no legal limit on the amount of cash they can lend to a political cause while those who do not have their allowed contribution amount capped.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Corporations such as -- to pick an example completely at random -- the New York Times? One of the many, many problems with advocating limiting corporate speech is that virtually everything larger than complaining on a blog or tacking a sign to an electrical pole is done by a corporate organization. If the New York Times can say what it pleases using its vast financial resources and nationwide distribution networks, it's very hard to argue coherently that, say, General Electric can't.
  - yequalsx 11y ago
    Children have to abide by the law but don't have input into its making. Thus I think your rationale on 2 is not sufficient. I'm against corporations from making campaign contributions because the money GE, for instance, has far outweighs what millions of actual people have and the decision to spend GE's money is in the hands of very few people. Those people who do have the power to spend GE's money on campaigns are themselves very wealthy people and already have a disproportionate amounts of influence on campaigns.
- specialist 11y ago
  I'll believe corporations are people (natural persons) when Texas executes one.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Is bankruptcy just dealing with the already dead body? I bet there is at least some corner case where an action of the state government made a company give up operating (like pulling a liquor license or whatever).
    - specialist 11y ago
      Bankruptcy is an accountant assisted suicide attempt. Executing a corporation would be more akin to seizing all the assets, throwing the board and execs in jail, shredding any and all contracts, some high profile perp walks. Now that I'm describing it... It'd look like a RICO case.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      Trust-busting also comes to mind.
      - specialist 11y ago
        Name one corporation that is now no more because of trust busting, either partially or wholly.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        American Shoe.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Corporations shouldn't be people though. Juridical personhood is the defining characteristic of a corporation.
- MCRed 11y ago
  This ruling didn't make corporations people, it gave groups of people the right to exercise the free speech rights they already had, even when they choose to pool their money to buy the media on which they wish to express themselves.
- gozur88 11y ago
  Corporations aren't people. They're groups of people. Why is it I lose my right to speak if I'm in a group? In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
  - uxp 11y ago
    You shouldn't lose your right to anything when you're in a group, but you shouldn't have more rights solely because you're in a group. The group should have rights, You should have rights, and everyone else should have rights. There's a distinction there.
    - specialist 11y ago
      you shouldn't have more rights solely because you're in a group. So no more collective bargaining?
    - gozur88 11y ago
      What rights do I have as part of a corporation that I don't have as an individual?
      - uxp 11y ago
        You do not have any rights as part of a corporation that you do not already have as an individual. That is the distinction. The corporation has rights, of which you can enact on behalf of the corporation, that you cannot enact on your own. Limits on campaign contributions is one such right. Because you carry in your wallet a card that declares you a member of a corporation, you are not granted any rights, personally.
        bmelton 11y ago
        I think you're radically mistaken on how corporate contributions work. Near as I can find, corporations don't have carte blanche to give unlimited money to an individual campaign. In fact, corporations cannot give any money to an individual candidate's campaign. Corporations can give money to Political Action Committees, but are limited by amount to the same as real people. Corporations can give money to SuperPACs, but so can real people. http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml If I am wrong, I welcome corrections, but I think you're off on what corporations can and cannot do.
- rhino369 11y ago
  The problem with this viewpoint is that historically, and especially today, free speech and press is conducted primarily through corporations. Campaigning is done on corporate television. The print press is for profit corporations. Can you imagine a free election without the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Twitter, Reddit, etc. Why can't Koch brothers buy advertisements trashing Hillary Clinton when Jeff Bezos can buy the Washington Post and then run a hit piece on Marco Rubio? Getting private corporations out of the speech business is probably impossible because of the internet. You could probably devise a system to attempt it, but it would be radical.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    >Why can't Koch brothers buy advertisements trashing Hillary Clinton when Jeff Bezos can buy the Washington Post and then run a hit piece on Marco Rubio? This. I've heard people joking refer to campaign finance laws as "enforcement of mainstream media relevance".
monocasa 11y ago
The big issue I see with your argument is that volunteer work isn't nearly as scalable as large amounts of money in terms of contributions from an individual. There's a difference between writing an app in your spare time, and running $100M of advertisements.
- bmelton 11y ago
  It gets harder to measure, but on the argument of scalability, that varies dramatically. If I wrote an app that was as popular as GMail, it's very possibly much more impactful than a $100M worth of advertisements.
  - monocasa 11y ago
    Can you point to an app that swung an election more than $100M worth of advertisements? Like, I know this is hacker news, home of "there's no limit to what you can achieve with hard work and VC money!", but if we're being honest with ourselves could even a single unicorn class app company swing a presidential election if it put it's mind to it?
    - bmelton 11y ago
      Yes. https://www.ngpvan.com/ https://www.ngpvan.com/ I've worked on similar. An app that helps organize volunteers, sort and categorize mailing list responses, build street-maps for volunteers to walk to get the most value out of their canvasing time is worth FAR more than even a really good TV ad.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      Nader Trader, almost. It nearly swung the election to Gore in 2000 by giving him votes in swing states. (And some would claim he should have been counted as the winner because of Florida.)
specialist 11y ago
The US Federal government regulates money. Given money == speech, you're okay with the government regulating speech?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  The government already regulates certain kinds of speech. Can't yell fire if no fire exists in a crowded room.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The government already regulates certain kinds of speech. Can't yell fire if no fire exists in a crowded room. Popular saying, but very bad example. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- MCRed 11y ago
  First off, depends on how you use the word "regulate". But the government has done a poor job of regulating money, and well, to be honest, money is really the result of our efforts / labors, and thus yeah, the government should not be regulating it, generally.
- markdown 11y ago
  Money is speech when it suits them. You can yell from the rooftops that you support Daesh, but try sending them some money... suddenly money isn't speech.
- rhino369 11y ago
  But it's not money==speech. More like often times restricting money is restricting speech. That doesn't necessarily mean money is exactly speech. Which is why the government still restricts campaign donations. It just can't restrict money when that money is being used for actual speech.

by bmelton 11y ago

conical 11y ago

Every citizen has one vote and 24 hours in a day to allocate to supporting a candidate (bounded by the obvious). Speech has much more in common with time than it does money.

weatherlight 11y ago

Corporations shouldn't be people though. This is a dangerous precedent.

ageek123 11y ago
Legal recognition of corporations as people long pre-dated Citizens United: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
bmelton 11y ago
I disagree 1) that they are, and 2) that they oughtn't be allowed to be for what you're intending. On 1) They aren't persons, but do have a limited degree of personhood. Among other things, that personhood is what allows us to sue them and such. On 2) I don't have a problem with it. If companies have to abide the law, then I can't imagine how it would be that they shouldn't have input into its making. I agree that corporate influence is a real problem, but would personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers is a better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That said, this debate is getting into the 'purely political' territory, and is probably not a great fit for an HN discussion.
- pasquinelli 11y ago
  a corporation isn't a democratic institution, so the wealth that's generated by all the people in that corporation is only available for use by the owners of that corporation. the money everyone generates only amplifies the voice of those people that own the corporation. if a corporation is a democratic institution, with equal influence and participation of all members of it, then i agree there's no problem. that isn't the case for most corporations.
- zbyte64 11y ago
  > better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That's the crux of the problem though. People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Those that own a corporation have no legal limit on the amount of cash they can lend to a political cause while those who do not have their allowed contribution amount capped.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Corporations such as -- to pick an example completely at random -- the New York Times? One of the many, many problems with advocating limiting corporate speech is that virtually everything larger than complaining on a blog or tacking a sign to an electrical pole is done by a corporate organization. If the New York Times can say what it pleases using its vast financial resources and nationwide distribution networks, it's very hard to argue coherently that, say, General Electric can't.
- yequalsx 11y ago
  Children have to abide by the law but don't have input into its making. Thus I think your rationale on 2 is not sufficient. I'm against corporations from making campaign contributions because the money GE, for instance, has far outweighs what millions of actual people have and the decision to spend GE's money is in the hands of very few people. Those people who do have the power to spend GE's money on campaigns are themselves very wealthy people and already have a disproportionate amounts of influence on campaigns.
specialist 11y ago
I'll believe corporations are people (natural persons) when Texas executes one.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Is bankruptcy just dealing with the already dead body? I bet there is at least some corner case where an action of the state government made a company give up operating (like pulling a liquor license or whatever).
  - specialist 11y ago
    Bankruptcy is an accountant assisted suicide attempt. Executing a corporation would be more akin to seizing all the assets, throwing the board and execs in jail, shredding any and all contracts, some high profile perp walks. Now that I'm describing it... It'd look like a RICO case.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    Trust-busting also comes to mind.
    - specialist 11y ago
      Name one corporation that is now no more because of trust busting, either partially or wholly.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        American Shoe.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Corporations shouldn't be people though. Juridical personhood is the defining characteristic of a corporation.
MCRed 11y ago
This ruling didn't make corporations people, it gave groups of people the right to exercise the free speech rights they already had, even when they choose to pool their money to buy the media on which they wish to express themselves.
gozur88 11y ago
Corporations aren't people. They're groups of people. Why is it I lose my right to speak if I'm in a group? In that respect, what makes corporations different from unions or advocacy groups like Greenpeace?
- uxp 11y ago
  You shouldn't lose your right to anything when you're in a group, but you shouldn't have more rights solely because you're in a group. The group should have rights, You should have rights, and everyone else should have rights. There's a distinction there.
  - specialist 11y ago
    you shouldn't have more rights solely because you're in a group. So no more collective bargaining?
  - gozur88 11y ago
    What rights do I have as part of a corporation that I don't have as an individual?
    - uxp 11y ago
      You do not have any rights as part of a corporation that you do not already have as an individual. That is the distinction. The corporation has rights, of which you can enact on behalf of the corporation, that you cannot enact on your own. Limits on campaign contributions is one such right. Because you carry in your wallet a card that declares you a member of a corporation, you are not granted any rights, personally.
      - bmelton 11y ago
        I think you're radically mistaken on how corporate contributions work. Near as I can find, corporations don't have carte blanche to give unlimited money to an individual campaign. In fact, corporations cannot give any money to an individual candidate's campaign. Corporations can give money to Political Action Committees, but are limited by amount to the same as real people. Corporations can give money to SuperPACs, but so can real people. http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml If I am wrong, I welcome corrections, but I think you're off on what corporations can and cannot do.
rhino369 11y ago
The problem with this viewpoint is that historically, and especially today, free speech and press is conducted primarily through corporations. Campaigning is done on corporate television. The print press is for profit corporations. Can you imagine a free election without the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Twitter, Reddit, etc. Why can't Koch brothers buy advertisements trashing Hillary Clinton when Jeff Bezos can buy the Washington Post and then run a hit piece on Marco Rubio? Getting private corporations out of the speech business is probably impossible because of the internet. You could probably devise a system to attempt it, but it would be radical.
- SilasX 11y ago
  >Why can't Koch brothers buy advertisements trashing Hillary Clinton when Jeff Bezos can buy the Washington Post and then run a hit piece on Marco Rubio? This. I've heard people joking refer to campaign finance laws as "enforcement of mainstream media relevance".

monocasa 11y ago

The big issue I see with your argument is that volunteer work isn't nearly as scalable as large amounts of money in terms of contributions from an individual. There's a difference between writing an app in your spare time, and running $100M of advertisements.

bmelton 11y ago
It gets harder to measure, but on the argument of scalability, that varies dramatically. If I wrote an app that was as popular as GMail, it's very possibly much more impactful than a $100M worth of advertisements.
- monocasa 11y ago
  Can you point to an app that swung an election more than $100M worth of advertisements? Like, I know this is hacker news, home of "there's no limit to what you can achieve with hard work and VC money!", but if we're being honest with ourselves could even a single unicorn class app company swing a presidential election if it put it's mind to it?
  - bmelton 11y ago
    Yes. https://www.ngpvan.com/ https://www.ngpvan.com/ I've worked on similar. An app that helps organize volunteers, sort and categorize mailing list responses, build street-maps for volunteers to walk to get the most value out of their canvasing time is worth FAR more than even a really good TV ad.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Nader Trader, almost. It nearly swung the election to Gore in 2000 by giving him votes in swing states. (And some would claim he should have been counted as the winner because of Florida.)

specialist 11y ago

The US Federal government regulates money. Given money == speech, you're okay with the government regulating speech?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
The government already regulates certain kinds of speech. Can't yell fire if no fire exists in a crowded room.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The government already regulates certain kinds of speech. Can't yell fire if no fire exists in a crowded room. Popular saying, but very bad example. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
MCRed 11y ago
First off, depends on how you use the word "regulate". But the government has done a poor job of regulating money, and well, to be honest, money is really the result of our efforts / labors, and thus yeah, the government should not be regulating it, generally.
markdown 11y ago
Money is speech when it suits them. You can yell from the rooftops that you support Daesh, but try sending them some money... suddenly money isn't speech.
rhino369 11y ago
But it's not money==speech. More like often times restricting money is restricting speech. That doesn't necessarily mean money is exactly speech. Which is why the government still restricts campaign donations. It just can't restrict money when that money is being used for actual speech.