3 ms·

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 p

by 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
personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers What are you suggesting here? Increased direct democracy? Less lobbying, presumably thru regulation, thereby curtailing speech?
- bmelton 11y ago
  I have first-hand experience dealing with Michael Chertoff. You may not know the name, but he's been a SCOTUS clerk, federal prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney General, NSA Director, and Secretary of Homeland Security. He was also chairman of BAE systems, The Chertoff Group, and other defense-oriented businesses. BAE is D.C.'s 8th largest contractor. Chertoff was instrumental in mandating the FAA's adoption of body scanners for security in his capacity as a public official. As a private citizen, The Chertoff Group represents lobbying efforts for security product companies and manufacturers. Airports may or may not need body scanners. I think that the general HN audience is more familiar with Schneier's work enough to know of the 'security theater' that they represent, but even allowing for the possibility that they actually do some good, it seems absolutely absurd to me that the director of the NSA or the Secretary of Homeland Security has the power to mandate their purchase and installation with one hand, while selling them to the government with the other. Assuredly this is neither the most or least egregious example of federal corruption, but I think it's the most illustrative. To me, the federal government has only the powers enumerated in the constitution. Mandating security devices isn't one of those powers, but the federal government has claimed it in its purview. I don't necessarily have a problem with the federal government trying to keep us safe, if that's what they're doing, and I certainly don't mean to besmirch Chertoff as the archetype of corruption -- he may very well have the best possible intent... but at the same time, it would be silly of me, as president, to insist that only the software company I owned could possibly manufacture secure-enough solutions for the government and mandate their usage as vendor.
  - monocasa 11y ago
    I guess I fail to see how allowing corporations to pay for large parts of politicians' campaigns achieves the goals you're implicitly stating here.

by bmelton 11y ago

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

personally suggest that limiting the scope of influence available to lawmakers What are you suggesting here? Increased direct democracy? Less lobbying, presumably thru regulation, thereby curtailing speech?

bmelton 11y ago
I have first-hand experience dealing with Michael Chertoff. You may not know the name, but he's been a SCOTUS clerk, federal prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney General, NSA Director, and Secretary of Homeland Security. He was also chairman of BAE systems, The Chertoff Group, and other defense-oriented businesses. BAE is D.C.'s 8th largest contractor. Chertoff was instrumental in mandating the FAA's adoption of body scanners for security in his capacity as a public official. As a private citizen, The Chertoff Group represents lobbying efforts for security product companies and manufacturers. Airports may or may not need body scanners. I think that the general HN audience is more familiar with Schneier's work enough to know of the 'security theater' that they represent, but even allowing for the possibility that they actually do some good, it seems absolutely absurd to me that the director of the NSA or the Secretary of Homeland Security has the power to mandate their purchase and installation with one hand, while selling them to the government with the other. Assuredly this is neither the most or least egregious example of federal corruption, but I think it's the most illustrative. To me, the federal government has only the powers enumerated in the constitution. Mandating security devices isn't one of those powers, but the federal government has claimed it in its purview. I don't necessarily have a problem with the federal government trying to keep us safe, if that's what they're doing, and I certainly don't mean to besmirch Chertoff as the archetype of corruption -- he may very well have the best possible intent... but at the same time, it would be silly of me, as president, to insist that only the software company I owned could possibly manufacture secure-enough solutions for the government and mandate their usage as vendor.
- monocasa 11y ago
  I guess I fail to see how allowing corporations to pay for large parts of politicians' campaigns achieves the goals you're implicitly stating here.