3 ms·
What you seem to be suggesting is that everything a corporation may or may not do is a political question to be decided by lawmakers nominally guarding the “com
by twoodfin 9y ago
What you seem to be suggesting is that everything a corporation may or may not do is a political question to be decided by lawmakers nominally guarding the “common good”.
Where does that leave a corporation like the New York Times, which may wish to publish articles in contravention of lawmakers’ ideas of the common good?
- empath75 9y agoYes of course they do. Corporations are defined as persons by law, not by the constitution. The congress can easily revoke corporate personhood and the 14th amendment and all of the rest would no longer apply.
- comex 9y agoIf you’re referring to Citizens United, the idea that the decision was based on some technical concept of corporate personhood is basically a myth. Rather, it was based on combining the right of (individual) freedom of speech with another Constitutional right, freedom of association. To quote Wikipedia: > The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. If you’re not referring to Citizens United, well, it’s still a relevant precedent that would prevent your plan from working :)
- rectang 9y agoCitizens United can certainly be argued as intellectually consistent. But ugh, it is simultaneously so effective at disempowering citizens who don't control major corporate entities. Thousands and thousands of us can so easily be shouted down by massive corporations showering money on our representatives.