5 ms·

> which in turn means that corporations can do the same politicking (and political funding) that natural persons do. How can a corporation do any of these with

by xyzzyz 4y ago

> which in turn means that corporations can do the same politicking (and political funding) that natural persons do. How can a corporation do any of these without natural persons being actually the ones deciding on and performing these actions? Corporation is, after all, just a form of organization of natural persons, and cannot do anything on its own. In Citizens United, government argued that the government can ban you from publishing a book, unless you’re completely self funding it: if any corporate funds are used in book publishing process (as they typically are with books where authors are paid royalties, it is likely that no books you ever heard about have been completely self-funded). Are you also supporting this position, that government can suppress your speech if any at any point corporate funds are used?

woodruffw 4y ago
> Corporation is, after all, just a form of organization of natural persons, and cannot do anything on its own. A corporation is a synthetic legal object: beyond basic restrictions on its form, it's allowed to legislate itself internally according to whatever bylaws and structure it pleases. There is no requirement (and no particular precedent) for them having a democratic structure. This produces a fundamental tension between the people who comprise the corporation and the decisions that the corporation makes: the corporation can choose to do things that are overwhelmingly unpopular with its employees without significant recourse, since the corporation does not operate according to the will of its members. In other words: corporations are naturally susceptible to undemocratic power concentrations, where a small number of executives or board members use the financial heft of the corporate body to achieve their personal goals. Allowing those concentrations to then seep into our democratic system is fundamentally corrosive. > Are you also supporting this position, that government can suppress your speech if any at any point corporate funds are used? No. I'm not obliged to defend whatever argument the USG's lawyers presented during the particulars of the CU case.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > This produces a fundamental tension between the people who comprise the corporation and the decisions that the corporation makes: the corporation can choose to do things that are overwhelmingly unpopular with its employees without significant recourse, since the corporation does not operate according to the will of its members. Sure, but it’s still natural persons who are actually making those decisions, no? After all, a “synthetic legal object” cannot actually make any decision. You seem to be conceding that the Citizen United did in fact protect the speech right of natural persons, you just complain about the technical aspects of how this speech act was performed. > In other words: corporations are naturally susceptible to undemocratic power concentrations, where a small number of executives or board members use the financial heft of the corporate body to achieve their personal goals. Allowing those concentrations to then seep into our democratic system is fundamentally corrosive. So you are only against Citizens United as applied to big and powerful corporations, but are totally fine with it with less powerful corporations? Say, you totally support the actual plaintiff, the Citizens United organization, in its right to publish the movie that was the subject matter in the case? Also, given that you seem to believe that the government should be allowed to block speech by powerful corporations, what about speech by powerful and rich individuals? Should government also have a right to restrict speech of individuals if they are rich and powerful enough?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. This is not what we've seen in the post-CU political financing world: we've increasingly seen opaque corporate structures where unknown individuals ply unknown amounts of money (collected from the labor of people who almost certainly wouldn't approve it directly) into races. CU does nothing to protect the free expression of individuals; it has markedly diminished the expressive power of individuals in the political sphere in favor of opaque and legally established (rather than natural) entities. > So you are only against Citizens United as applied to big and powerful corporations, but are totally fine with it with less powerful corporations? Say, you totally support the actual plaintiff, the Citizens United organization, in its right to publish the movie that was the subject matter in the case? I don't know if this is intentional on your part, but you're dropping a key piece of context: Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily wealthy corporate financiers. It's not some kind of scrappy outfit with a handful of unpaid undergraduate interns, and it would not exist independent of the corporate interests that use it as a more palatable front for political influence ("Koch Interests Action Campaign" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it, I think). > Should government also have a right to restrict speech of individuals if they are rich and powerful enough? Frankly, there should be no private financing of elections at all. But that's not realistic. Realistically: rich and powerful people have the exact same right to engage in electoral politics as everyone else, and there is no immediately feasible way to stop them from dominating those politics via their wealth and power. What we can do is make those attempts at domination as transparent as possible. Rulings like CU directly stand in the way of electoral transparency.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      > If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. > (...) > Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily wealthy corporate financiers. So what is your complaint here, exactly? That wealthy corporate financiers can do everything that Citizens United tried to do, as long as at no point any of the funds pass through any corporation or a non-profit? Seems like you're just trying to make the speech of the wealthy corporate financiers difficult. I don't think people should lose their rights just because they are wealthy.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  > you seem to believe that the government should be allowed to block speech by powerful corporations, what about speech by powerful and rich individuals? It's like speed-limits. You can only drive so fast. Similarly we should limit how many dollars any single person can spend on manipulating public opinion. With corporations I guess we should divide the amount they spend on political adds by the number of share-holders, and put a limit on that.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > It's like speed-limits. You can only drive so fast. Similarly we should limit how many dollars any single person can spend on manipulating public opinion. Does this apply to all advertising, or just "political" advertising? Is "Enjoy Coca Cola" the acceptable kind of "manipulating public opinion", or the bad kind that is limited? Who draws the distinction? Is Shell or Exxon allowed to advertise their products? Are they allowed to advertise their products in a positive light? Are there spending limits on their just, like, normal product advertising? Can I air anti-oil and pro-clean-air advertisements? Are these "political" even if Shell's aren't?
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      Good questions. I think companies should be allowed to advertise their products. But advertising for who should be elected to run the government is a different ball-game. Why? Because government is not just a product you could refuse to "buy". Government should represent us. But it should not represent rich people more than anybody else, which is what happens if the rich can choose the government based on political advertising and misinformation.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

> Corporation is, after all, just a form of organization of natural persons, and cannot do anything on its own. A corporation is a synthetic legal object: beyond basic restrictions on its form, it's allowed to legislate itself internally according to whatever bylaws and structure it pleases. There is no requirement (and no particular precedent) for them having a democratic structure. This produces a fundamental tension between the people who comprise the corporation and the decisions that the corporation makes: the corporation can choose to do things that are overwhelmingly unpopular with its employees without significant recourse, since the corporation does not operate according to the will of its members. In other words: corporations are naturally susceptible to undemocratic power concentrations, where a small number of executives or board members use the financial heft of the corporate body to achieve their personal goals. Allowing those concentrations to then seep into our democratic system is fundamentally corrosive. > Are you also supporting this position, that government can suppress your speech if any at any point corporate funds are used? No. I'm not obliged to defend whatever argument the USG's lawyers presented during the particulars of the CU case.

xyzzyz 4y ago
> This produces a fundamental tension between the people who comprise the corporation and the decisions that the corporation makes: the corporation can choose to do things that are overwhelmingly unpopular with its employees without significant recourse, since the corporation does not operate according to the will of its members. Sure, but it’s still natural persons who are actually making those decisions, no? After all, a “synthetic legal object” cannot actually make any decision. You seem to be conceding that the Citizen United did in fact protect the speech right of natural persons, you just complain about the technical aspects of how this speech act was performed. > In other words: corporations are naturally susceptible to undemocratic power concentrations, where a small number of executives or board members use the financial heft of the corporate body to achieve their personal goals. Allowing those concentrations to then seep into our democratic system is fundamentally corrosive. So you are only against Citizens United as applied to big and powerful corporations, but are totally fine with it with less powerful corporations? Say, you totally support the actual plaintiff, the Citizens United organization, in its right to publish the movie that was the subject matter in the case? Also, given that you seem to believe that the government should be allowed to block speech by powerful corporations, what about speech by powerful and rich individuals? Should government also have a right to restrict speech of individuals if they are rich and powerful enough?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. This is not what we've seen in the post-CU political financing world: we've increasingly seen opaque corporate structures where unknown individuals ply unknown amounts of money (collected from the labor of people who almost certainly wouldn't approve it directly) into races. CU does nothing to protect the free expression of individuals; it has markedly diminished the expressive power of individuals in the political sphere in favor of opaque and legally established (rather than natural) entities. > So you are only against Citizens United as applied to big and powerful corporations, but are totally fine with it with less powerful corporations? Say, you totally support the actual plaintiff, the Citizens United organization, in its right to publish the movie that was the subject matter in the case? I don't know if this is intentional on your part, but you're dropping a key piece of context: Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily wealthy corporate financiers. It's not some kind of scrappy outfit with a handful of unpaid undergraduate interns, and it would not exist independent of the corporate interests that use it as a more palatable front for political influence ("Koch Interests Action Campaign" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it, I think). > Should government also have a right to restrict speech of individuals if they are rich and powerful enough? Frankly, there should be no private financing of elections at all. But that's not realistic. Realistically: rich and powerful people have the exact same right to engage in electoral politics as everyone else, and there is no immediately feasible way to stop them from dominating those politics via their wealth and power. What we can do is make those attempts at domination as transparent as possible. Rulings like CU directly stand in the way of electoral transparency.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    > If it's a natural person, then they can do it with their own time and money. > (...) > Citizens United (the organization) is a PAC, with extraordinarily wealthy corporate financiers. So what is your complaint here, exactly? That wealthy corporate financiers can do everything that Citizens United tried to do, as long as at no point any of the funds pass through any corporation or a non-profit? Seems like you're just trying to make the speech of the wealthy corporate financiers difficult. I don't think people should lose their rights just because they are wealthy.
galaxyLogic 4y ago
> you seem to believe that the government should be allowed to block speech by powerful corporations, what about speech by powerful and rich individuals? It's like speed-limits. You can only drive so fast. Similarly we should limit how many dollars any single person can spend on manipulating public opinion. With corporations I guess we should divide the amount they spend on political adds by the number of share-holders, and put a limit on that.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > It's like speed-limits. You can only drive so fast. Similarly we should limit how many dollars any single person can spend on manipulating public opinion. Does this apply to all advertising, or just "political" advertising? Is "Enjoy Coca Cola" the acceptable kind of "manipulating public opinion", or the bad kind that is limited? Who draws the distinction? Is Shell or Exxon allowed to advertise their products? Are they allowed to advertise their products in a positive light? Are there spending limits on their just, like, normal product advertising? Can I air anti-oil and pro-clean-air advertisements? Are these "political" even if Shell's aren't?
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    Good questions. I think companies should be allowed to advertise their products. But advertising for who should be elected to run the government is a different ball-game. Why? Because government is not just a product you could refuse to "buy". Government should represent us. But it should not represent rich people more than anybody else, which is what happens if the rich can choose the government based on political advertising and misinformation.