3 ms·

Well, Comcast has hundreds of thousands of owners and they don't all get an equal or even proportional (in reality not in theory) say in how the corporation spe

Well, Comcast has hundreds of thousands of owners and they don't all get an equal or even proportional (in reality not in theory) say in how the corporation spends the money of the corporation to get its message across. Corporations have 'free speech' in the sense that a corporation can spend its money without legal limit on political campaigns. The number of people who have effective control over that money is quite small in relation to the number of owners. Saying a corporation has free speech is not all like saying a printing press has free speech. Corporations have their own bank accounts, their own money, are subject to laws and have legal privileges that printing presses do not.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I agree that there are issues with shareholder governance; mostly a bunch of well meaning laws from the corporate raider era that prevent shareholder activism. This is a rather separate issue. Suppose we eliminated corporate personhood. Now a collective of people are bound together in a web of contracts and call themselves "citizens united". They agree to act and use a subset of their property in accordance with a specific governance structure determined by a mutually agreed upon charter. How do you hinder this non-corporate group's rights to free speech?
- jmilloy 11y ago
  Now you are saying that we can't regulate corporate spending because can't regulate a non-corporate groups spending. It's like saying we can't stop kids from buying alcohol because we can't stop adults from buying alcohol. It makes no sense. I think you have a reasonable point to make, but you are not being clear enough.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Let me be very clear. The First Amendment to the US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The court has ruled that this also means that humans can use their property in the furtherance of speech. Such property can be a printing press, a computer connected to the internet, a corporation, a ship, a billboard or other such things. Some of those pieces of property are legal persons (corporations, ships), others are not. The personhood of the piece of property is irrelevant.
    - jmilloy 11y ago
      There we go!
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      Didn't we fight a war about people being property one upon a time.
      - qu4z-2 11y ago
        I... don't believe you did, but I may be wrong.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I agree that there are issues with shareholder governance; mostly a bunch of well meaning laws from the corporate raider era that prevent shareholder activism. This is a rather separate issue. Suppose we eliminated corporate personhood. Now a collective of people are bound together in a web of contracts and call themselves "citizens united". They agree to act and use a subset of their property in accordance with a specific governance structure determined by a mutually agreed upon charter. How do you hinder this non-corporate group's rights to free speech?

jmilloy 11y ago
Now you are saying that we can't regulate corporate spending because can't regulate a non-corporate groups spending. It's like saying we can't stop kids from buying alcohol because we can't stop adults from buying alcohol. It makes no sense. I think you have a reasonable point to make, but you are not being clear enough.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Let me be very clear. The First Amendment to the US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The court has ruled that this also means that humans can use their property in the furtherance of speech. Such property can be a printing press, a computer connected to the internet, a corporation, a ship, a billboard or other such things. Some of those pieces of property are legal persons (corporations, ships), others are not. The personhood of the piece of property is irrelevant.
  - jmilloy 11y ago
    There we go!
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    Didn't we fight a war about people being property one upon a time.
    - qu4z-2 11y ago
      I... don't believe you did, but I may be wrong.