3 ms·

Your guesses are no more than preconceptions, and asserting that she's wrong on the basis of what you imagine her views to be is a poor standard for evaluating

Your guesses are no more than preconceptions, and asserting that she's wrong on the basis of what you imagine her views to be is a poor standard for evaluating anyone. I will bet you $25 that she will not vote in favor of corporations having the right to free speech. As for the criminal liability issue: Imagine you loan money to a friend. Your friend tells you he is going to use the loan to buy a bus ticket to a job interview. Your friend promises to pay you back plus 20% in a week. That friend then uses the money to buy a gun, and uses the gun to rob a gas station. He pays you back the money, with interest. You do not know about the crime, but you have profited from criminal actions. A court would likely not hold you criminally responsible, as long as you had no reason to suspect your friend of using the money to engage in criminal actions. It would probably require you to pay back the money. If you knew your friend was going to use the money to buy a gun, then you indeed would be criminally liable. If there was a "wink wink" arrangement (ie, you say to your friend, "here's some money, turn it into more money, but don't break the law, wink, wink"), you could be held criminally responsible. Figuring out if you knew the intentions of your friend is a judgement call. Likewise, if I invest in a corporation that I know to be engaging in criminal acts, I should be criminally liable for those actions. If I invest in a corporation that is secretly engaging in criminal acts, and I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that my money is not being used for criminal acts, then I should not be criminally liable. If the company is later convicted for criminal/third party tort charges, and the amount of the fine exceeds the liquidation value of the company, it would make sense to claw back into previously paid dividends, the same way as you confiscate any blood money.

anigbrowl 17y ago
I will bet you $25 that she will not vote in favor of corporations having the right to free speech. And maybe you're right, but in this case all she did was point out that the plaintiff's argument would raise such a question and might result in an excessively broad ruling for such a narrow problem. what she did and what we might do in the future are two entirely different things, and you are applying your opinion about the latter to the former with no basis in fact. I know, I'm being pedantic here, but I think you're reading far too much into what she actually said. Edit: I'm more and more confused about where you think she would be wrong anyway if the did vote this way, since you do don't think corporations should enjoy the status of legal persons. How would a suggestion that corporations don't enjoy constitutional protections infringe on the individual rights of those shareholders? Presumably, even if DownWithPedro Corp is forbidden from advertising on the eve of the election, I could still write an impassioned screed on the same subject in my own name. to be honest, I think the reason this particular company (in the lawsuit under discussion) exists is not to make a profit but to protect its investors from the financial risks of being sued for libel if they released the film as a group of individuals without the benefit of limited liability. If the company is later convicted ... make sense to claw back into previously paid dividends ... I agree with most of what you say. We are not so far apart on the possible implementations. My beef is not with the basics of capitalism per se, but the fact that nowadays at least, arcane corporate structures are all too often employed to diffuse responsibility to the point of meaninglessness. In the Pfizer case I mentioned, one sales manager got 6 months of house arrest plus a $100 fine, which I frankly thought was just as unfair to Pfizer shareholders as to consumers. A few years back I thought Sarbanes-Oxley would lead to meaningful reforms in comporate decision making and risk management, but the events of the last 2 years have proved me woefully mistaken :-/
- bokonist 17y ago
  How would a suggestion that corporations don't enjoy constitutional protections infringe on the individual rights of those shareholders? Let me rephrase. I believe that corporations are not persons. But I believe that the owners and operators of a corporation have the rights of persons, and they have the Constitutional right to use their corporate funds for political speech. There have been court rulings that oppose this view, and I'm guessing that Sotomayor agrees with those rulings (although you are right, she has not said this explicitly, I read the original article too fast and attributed views to her by association, since I know she's generally a left-wing judge.) Presumably, even if DownWithPedro Corp is forbidden from advertising on the eve of the election, I could still write an impassioned screed on the same subject in my own name. If the first amendment means anything it protects the right to pay someone to speak for you, to organize as a group to speech, to organize as a group to fund the printing of pamphlets, etc. Freedom of speech is not limited to me as individual yelling off of a soapbox. It protects my right to organize with others to print newspapers, make videos, promote videos, etc. If I'm going to organize with others, I'll often need to setup a contract to guide the organization - ie a corporate charter. Court rulings that limit the political speech of people in corporations are essentially banning one particular form of organization from speaking, and allowing others (NYTimes and Harvard Corporation get free speech, Exxon Mobil does not). Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech for organizations that Congress likes. It means freedom for everyone. to be honest, I think the reason this particular company (in the lawsuit under discussion) exists is not to make a profit but to protect its investors from the financial risks of being sued for libel if they released the film as a group of individuals without the benefit of limited liability. Legally, I am pretty sure libel would not protect against libel committed by the management or shareholders. In the Pfizer case I mentioned, one sales manager got 6 months of house arrest plus a $100 fine, which I frankly thought was just as unfair to Pfizer shareholders as to consumers. I don't know a whole lot about the Pfizer case. But it doesn't seem like the crime was fraud in the common law sense. Rather they failed to comply with FDA administrative procedures. At least that's my impression of the case ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/for-med-free-speech.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/for-med-free-speech.ht... ), correct me if I'm wrong. Six months house arrest does not seem lenient for an essentially administrative violation. I don't think that represents the sales manager getting special treatment because of limited liability protections.

anigbrowl 17y ago

I will bet you $25 that she will not vote in favor of corporations having the right to free speech. And maybe you're right, but in this case all she did was point out that the plaintiff's argument would raise such a question and might result in an excessively broad ruling for such a narrow problem. what she did and what we might do in the future are two entirely different things, and you are applying your opinion about the latter to the former with no basis in fact. I know, I'm being pedantic here, but I think you're reading far too much into what she actually said. Edit: I'm more and more confused about where you think she would be wrong anyway if the did vote this way, since you do don't think corporations should enjoy the status of legal persons. How would a suggestion that corporations don't enjoy constitutional protections infringe on the individual rights of those shareholders? Presumably, even if DownWithPedro Corp is forbidden from advertising on the eve of the election, I could still write an impassioned screed on the same subject in my own name. to be honest, I think the reason this particular company (in the lawsuit under discussion) exists is not to make a profit but to protect its investors from the financial risks of being sued for libel if they released the film as a group of individuals without the benefit of limited liability. If the company is later convicted ... make sense to claw back into previously paid dividends ... I agree with most of what you say. We are not so far apart on the possible implementations. My beef is not with the basics of capitalism per se, but the fact that nowadays at least, arcane corporate structures are all too often employed to diffuse responsibility to the point of meaninglessness. In the Pfizer case I mentioned, one sales manager got 6 months of house arrest plus a $100 fine, which I frankly thought was just as unfair to Pfizer shareholders as to consumers. A few years back I thought Sarbanes-Oxley would lead to meaningful reforms in comporate decision making and risk management, but the events of the last 2 years have proved me woefully mistaken :-/

bokonist 17y ago
How would a suggestion that corporations don't enjoy constitutional protections infringe on the individual rights of those shareholders? Let me rephrase. I believe that corporations are not persons. But I believe that the owners and operators of a corporation have the rights of persons, and they have the Constitutional right to use their corporate funds for political speech. There have been court rulings that oppose this view, and I'm guessing that Sotomayor agrees with those rulings (although you are right, she has not said this explicitly, I read the original article too fast and attributed views to her by association, since I know she's generally a left-wing judge.) Presumably, even if DownWithPedro Corp is forbidden from advertising on the eve of the election, I could still write an impassioned screed on the same subject in my own name. If the first amendment means anything it protects the right to pay someone to speak for you, to organize as a group to speech, to organize as a group to fund the printing of pamphlets, etc. Freedom of speech is not limited to me as individual yelling off of a soapbox. It protects my right to organize with others to print newspapers, make videos, promote videos, etc. If I'm going to organize with others, I'll often need to setup a contract to guide the organization - ie a corporate charter. Court rulings that limit the political speech of people in corporations are essentially banning one particular form of organization from speaking, and allowing others (NYTimes and Harvard Corporation get free speech, Exxon Mobil does not). Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech for organizations that Congress likes. It means freedom for everyone. to be honest, I think the reason this particular company (in the lawsuit under discussion) exists is not to make a profit but to protect its investors from the financial risks of being sued for libel if they released the film as a group of individuals without the benefit of limited liability. Legally, I am pretty sure libel would not protect against libel committed by the management or shareholders. In the Pfizer case I mentioned, one sales manager got 6 months of house arrest plus a $100 fine, which I frankly thought was just as unfair to Pfizer shareholders as to consumers. I don't know a whole lot about the Pfizer case. But it doesn't seem like the crime was fraud in the common law sense. Rather they failed to comply with FDA administrative procedures. At least that's my impression of the case ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/for-med-free-speech.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/for-med-free-speech.ht... ), correct me if I'm wrong. Six months house arrest does not seem lenient for an essentially administrative violation. I don't think that represents the sales manager getting special treatment because of limited liability protections.