Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress
economix.blogs.nytimes.com
economix.blogs.nytimes.com
HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument, has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree" (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?)
The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages."
There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such as name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully reasoned refutations.
Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights - therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office."
Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and "contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.")
I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position.
My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?
Since the law has recognized corporations as "legal persons" for a couple of centuries at least, all without anyone even beginning to think that a corporation is a citizen entitled to vote and to run for office, I think there is a long-standing rationale for this position that its critics need to address before simply declaring the point to be absurd. This sort of stunt obviously fails to do this. And, far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than take a straw man position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing (at least nothing serious as far as law is concerned). It is, therefore, a low form of argumentation.
I understand that people feel passionately about it, and therefore appreciate a clever ploy that appears to make their point, but that is really my point: it is that very animated spirit that we can have about politics that allows us to lower standards and find acceptable in that context a way of arguing that we would axiomatically reject in another context.
This is a much better explanation of the view point you expressed originally - probably the best I've seen so far. I agree with you here completely. I still think it's a clever hack, but I concede that my original argument wasn't very strong.
People seem to want to spin this as "people involved in corporations gain a 'free speech' right that they wouldn't have if they were just a rich person", which would seem pretty bizarre, if it were actually what was said.
I think there is real merit in challenging, even via theatre, the have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too role held by corporations, and the very real growth of corporate personhood interpretations of law.
(... An example of ad hominem might be your implication that, by holding the views in my prior sentence, I'm "jumping onto this bandwagon" and abandoning "high standards" ...)
Although I consider that beside the point, since this company did more than just make an ad. They actually filed to take part in the Republican primary. Assuming they get denied, then that could set precedent for the limits of corporate person-hood.
The first amendment 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."
To me, it seems pretty obvious that by passing McCain-Feingold, Congress had made a law "abridging the freedom of speech." It should not be surprising that it was ruled unconstitutional.
In practice freedom of speech is a sliding scale. See the public school system. There we have determined that education of our youth is more important than absolute free speech. Perhaps democracy is more important as well? We make these pragmatic decisions about the 1st amendment all the time. The suggestion that it is an absolute is completely untenable.
Further, if you continue to adhere to a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution, will you make a public statement against hostile takeovers by shareholders? The text of the thirteenth amendment reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." If we really are treating corporations as people protected under the constitution, you shouldn't be able to take over a company against the management's wishes.
I hope I've made it clear that absolute interpretation of the constitution in this case is not a valid interpretation. Regardless of the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, literally interpreting the 1st amendment is an invalid argument against the legislation.
In a world where you have to pay for things, the ability to freely use your money is necessary for most rights. Unless everyone can will themselves TV and radio time and wish pamphlets and websites into existence, restriction of spending for political speech is a questionable proposition at best.
"Consequently, an absolute interpretation of the 1st ammendment means taxation is a violation of free speech."
Yes, it would, though the neutrality of most taxation can be used to argue it as a benign one. However, you're merely raising that as a strawman, as almost nobody cares about absolutist interpretations.
"Perhaps democracy is more important as well?"
Political speech has long been the type of speech jurists have been least willing to restrict because it is essential to democracy. You might as well say, "Perhaps the right to live is more important than the right to oxygen."
I apologize for what must be a failure in my writing, but that's exactly what I'm trying to convey. In my comment I tried to show how silly the logical conclusions of absolute interpretations look. I tried to avoid saying anything about the political side of the issue. You'll note though that as of this writing an absolutist interpretation is still the highest voted comment for this article.
Avoiding the actual argument while trying to cast the side you disagree with as ridiculous and extreme is the essence of the strawman fallacy.
So your misrepresentation of a pro-free-speech stance as "absolutist" and likening it to religious fundamentalism is disinterested trolling?
I most certainly am not trolling. You would know that if you read past the first sentence of the comment you replied to. Clearly you did not. I will quote myself again here in the hope that you read it this time: "I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up.".
I believe our exchange is past the point of being constructive, as you appear to be ignoring significant parts of my comments. I think I'll stop replying to this thread here, although I will certainly read your reply if you post one.
I did, and I found it unconvincing. You are representing the mere discussion of free-speech principles as absolutist and fanatical. If this is not towards the end of something you believe is undermined by someone else's free speech, and it is not intended to provoke, then it is a puzzling misrepresentation.
As it is, I believe the involvement of people with different degrees of attachment to principles is a useful thing. The more compromising people buffer the excesses of the stalwarts, and the stalwarts in turn help keep them honest.
More specifically, corporate personhood didn't exist at the time of the writing of the first amendment. It's somewhat disingenuous to take the lack of qualification in the first amendment as canonical on the matter. It's (arguably) absolutist because it's appealing to the exact wording out of context, when the current import of that wording is a historical accident. A non-absolutist viewpoint needs to acknowledge historical, legal, or social context.
Which of course requires that one consider this question a "finer point", or that the wording is "out of context". The Internet didn't exist at the time, either, but that doesn't mean free speech doesn't apply to it - or that there's a controversy we should teach on that question. That some people want to restrict speech in any given way does not mean free speech should be up for grabs in any given context.
The general constitutional-law take on civil liberties is that they come before other legal concerns unless one can demonstrate a serious and clear factor that outweighs them. To argue against the civil liberty interest without demonstrating that outweighing factor is far more ridiculous than to stand pat by the civil liberty interest.
That said, I'm not continuing this thread of argument.
Though, to be fair, everyone will likely be able to do these things (or their equivalents) in the distant-but-not-too-distant future.
Pamphlets won't go away until everyone has a smartphone, which could take a while, but once it happens, that's it for the medium. It gets replaced by the "website."
And you pretty much can will a website into existence. FrontPage is decidedly unpopular here, but I know people who have built adequate websites to their purposes just using FrontPage. We just need the free alternatives to catch up.
Even if nobody pays you a dime to do those things, you've just done something that can be priced under "in-kind" campaign finance regulations.
A corporation is somewhat handicapped in this regard, in that it doesn't actually have any time: it can only buy it from others. This does not strike me as a problem.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-...
I also don't understand your "hostile takeover" argument. Who is being enslaved? The corporate officers who are free to quit at any time? The shareholders who voluntarily sell to the person taking over?
The hostile takeover argument isn't even necessary to make my point. Consider the fact that a corporation can own another corporation. Corporations are people under the law. Therefore, if we literally interpret the constitution, the ban on slavery makes a corporation owning another corporation illegal. Of course this is rather silly and shows why strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution are irrelevant.
I am not trying to make political statements. The one and only thing I want to point out is the flaw in the highest voted comment for this article that advocates a strict constructionist interpretation of the 1st amendment [2].
[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889187,00....
"Legal personhood" means that the corporate entity is a legal person in the matter of contracts and lawsuits. The "person" of the corporation is just a facade (in the design patterns sense) which provides useful simplifications in contracts and lawsuits.
You could completely replace corporate personhood with contract law. You would just have 10,000 page contracts that would specify the liability of each individual shareholders is limited to X, a lawsuit must target all shareholders and damages/debts are limited to Y, etc. Basically, each contract would reproduce corporate law.
Then whenever you wanted to collect a debt or sue the company, you'd need to dig into the contract to figure out how.
Instead, we've created a useful simplification/standardization: you say "Company X owes me $50,000", and it's up to Company X to figure out internally how to deal with this. It's also standardized to a few specific forms (LLCs, LLPs, S-Corps, C-corps, etc).
That's all corporate personhood is. A corporation has no inherent rights except those rights granted it by it's shareholders. Similarly, your computer has no rights, but that doesn't mean the government can pass a law saying "your computer may not criticize Obama." Such a law doesn't violate your computers rights, it violates your rights.
Similarly, laws against political speech violate the rights of the owners of the corporation who are ordinary flesh and blood people (as opposed to legal facades to simplify lawsuits and contracts).
I do not believe that restrictions on corporations violate the individual rights of the owners. Aren't the owners are allowed to participate in politics individually, just as every citizen can?
Similarly, computers aren't people. So does a restriction on "speech by computers" violate your rights? I.e., a law saying "you can't use your computer to advocate for or against the election of a politician?"
In 2008, teachers were the largest group of political speakers nationwide, and contributed $13 million more to political causes than the largest corporation (the Penn National Gaming company). In general, government employees contribute more money to politics than corporations. In fact, in the list of the top 10 political contributors, there are 2 corporations (both gambling), 2 unions, 4 indian tribes, realtors, and a left wing PAC.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
And yes, I do suggest that freedom of speech should apply to all speech, even speech that is heard by millions of people. Similarly, the same laws on vocal speech should apply to me and to Oprah, in spite of the fact that vastly more people will hear and be persuaded by her.
Do you think a law that forbid spending money to criticize government policy would be compatible with the first amendment? By your reasoning Congress would be restricting money and not speech.
I am not trying to make the claim that money is not related to speech. Instead, I am claiming that since money is related to speech, any government regulation of money is regulation of speech. Therefore, if we were to use "abridging the freedom of speech" as the major criteria for declaring laws unconstitutional, we would have to strike down many, many laws that relate to the collection and regulation of money. I point out the extreme case only to show that it is unreasonable.
I instead advocate for a different approach where we interpret "abridging the freedom of speech" on a sliding scale. In doing so we can declare the more egregious laws unconstitutional while still allowing for some common sense regulation.
It sounds like a really bad argument, or one that is too subtle for me to pick up the good points. And I'm guessing it's the first.
In the decision, the question wasn't "does this prohibit the freedom of speech", it was "does a corporation have the freedom of speech" in the first place.
The argument could be reframed (based upon my limited reading of the decision) as "Does a person have the freedom to hear the speech of a corporation?". In this case, yes, they do. But they don't have to listen to it. And this is where I think there is still some play with McCain-Feingold in that perhaps it could be reworked to include a ban on corporations to use broadcast media w/in 30 days of an election. They could put up a website, print pamphlets, etc... but just not use a passive medium for their message.
No, that wasn't it.
The question was, "when acting in concert as a corporate body, do people retain their freedom of speech". Nobody has shown a compelling reason why people acting together shouldn't have the same rights as each of us has individually.
But a more basic reason is that a corporation is not a person! It's not a group of people, either, or they would call it a collective, co-op, or a partnership -- it is its own thing and there is no inherent reason whatsoever why it should have any rights at all, including the right to exist except as explicitly allowed by law.
That seems circular.
Shareholders do have ultimate control over corporations, by the way. But shareholders, generally, would rather sell their stock--or fall asleep at the wheel--then exercise corporate governance.
But that's besides the point.
You are downplaying the fact that the Constitution clearly grants us right to assembly, in the same amendment that grants us free speech, and an assembly of people has the right to speech just as much as a person does. According to jurisprudence, the government may only curtail these rights with laws that meet a "strict scrutiny" standard: they must meet a compelling government interest, they must be narrowly tailored, and they must be close to minimally restrictive. McCain-Feingold does not meet the second and third standards, and 4 justices think it does not meet the first.
You are also downplaying the difference between a group of people and a corporation. A corporation is when group of people place some of their rights and responsibilities into an artificial entity, in order to promote its own interests and shield the creators from a certain amount of responsibility. Why must this political-economic golem be given the right to free speech? My contention is that the right to free speech of the creators and shareholders is completely sufficient. Giving the controlling shareholders access to non-controlling capital to promote their own viewpoints is troublesome because it causes several interests to conflict that don't need to.
This is also a problem when the government takes money from some and gives to others. A socially conservative union member may vote democratic because he wishes for the government to restrict the rights of his employer and transfer wealth from customers to him. A social liberal working for a defense contract might vote republican because he wishes for the government to transfer wealth to his employer (and indirectly to him).
Anytime the government transfers wealth from some to others, it implicitly encourages people to sell out their values. I don't see why it is more of a problem for shareholders than for union members, people on social security/welfare/unemployment, or employees of corporations.
Why must this political-economic golem be subject to specific laws, regulations, and taxes beyond the ones all the people in a corporation are already subject to?
The answer to your question is because it's subject to special government attention, the people involved with such a device have a right to use it in the political process to protect their interests and involvement with it.
As for selling out, people make decisions all the time. If you don't like the politics of your company, try to do something about it or find another you like better. (Realistically, this isn't much of a concern. Corporate donations tend to be remarkably even-handed so as to not give the winner of an election the impression they preferred the other guy.)
US Constitution, Article 1 Section 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Does a corporation pass any of those tests? So why the heck do they make out like this is some kind of crisis?
Now, the state election laws may make it impossible for them to get on the ballot, but the Constitution doesn't put any restrictions on a corporation that shall be a Representative.
It's splitting hairs to the max, and I'm sure a court would find some way around it if it ever got there.
Also, is that 25 years objective or 25 years subjective, in the case of an AI that grows up faster than real time? (To the extent that that even has meaning outside of a direct human brain simulation.)
They have the right to lie, and if they are sued for liable / defamation, etc... they are a corporation that can be disbanded. And because they are a corporation, there is limited liability to the owners.
Also, buying all the airtime is basically impossible as it decreases supply while increasing demand. Once investors realized someone was trying to do that, they'd buy ad space just to sell to that company. It would be incredibly expensive to organize all the sub-companies needed to buy it all with out anyone noticing. If anyone notices the gig is up as investors will swoop in to take a cut of the action.
Besides, if anyone actually managed to do that, it would be VERY easy for the other side to get articles written about how their viewpoints can't be expressed.
It would generate so much free publicity for the other campaign that it would likely be counterproductive. I'd love to be the candidate opposing the guy who bought all the ad time. It's pretty much a guaranteed victory because of the public backlash that would result.
Rockefeller did it. Both Senior and Junior, actually. On multiple occasions. Now, there's probably nobody alive today with that kind of capital and influence to burn on this (with possible exception of Bill Gates and the House of Saud, both of whom seem to have other plans for their money).
I believe this already exists and is called a campaign. There are already rules governing fair play for campaigns, along with political action committees (PACs) and 501(c)3 groups.
Now, I'm not sure how they'd be able to try and make a profit...
These are organizations that exist for this sort of purpose. Why would some special-purpose single-election non-profit be any more "dangerous" than the sort of organizations that already exist?
I'm not familiar with the exact legalities, but I'm pretty sure it's not legal to flat-out lie.
Also, there's only so much money can buy. If huge advertising budgets was a silver bullet, we'd all be running Windows (and loving it!) while chatting on AOL and drinking New Coke.
That's the point of forming the corporation. It will do something illegal and take the hit, shielding its owners from liability for illegal conduct.
Also, a corporation isn't a silver-bullet-proof shield against personal responsibility. Kenneth Lay was convicted on (among others) four counts of fraud and false statements, and faced 20-30 years in jail.
No it isn't. If the correct decision were obvious from the text then it would have never been heard by the Supreme Court.
This is not some crazy new doctrine the USSC shat out this year, this is a legal premise that has existed for over a century. Otherwise, you couldn't sue a company for damages.
The issue is about political speech for actual human beings in organizations, including corporations and labor unions (and yet oddly, you don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship").
Crying out "ZOMG giving corporations rights!" is nothing more than trying to short-circuit others' thinking.
As the saying goes, those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve (and receive) neither. In the same manner those who sacrifice liberty toward reducing corruption in government deserve (and receive) neither.
[citation needed]. People have always been able to speak out in favor of their preferred candidates - that's what free speech is about. AFAIUI, the recent SCOTUS decision concerned:
1. What happens when there was an exchange of money for political speech on behalf of a third party, eg. paying someone for advertisements.
2. What happens when the "person" paying that money is not a person, but a corporation.
There's a big difference between somebody speaking out on their own and somebody paying for advertisement. There's a further difference between somebody paying for advertisement and something paying for advertisement.
I'll elaborate if you wish, but I'd assume this should be fairly clear to most people...
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/25/could-hillary-movie-case...
So your fundamental objection is to political organization.
Consider your last question, though: What do you mean by influence?
Multi-nationals based in the US and elsewhere already had plenty of influence in various forms before this decision. Now...they can pay for commercials. They can now make blatant, public statements of support in front of American customers, roughly 40% of whom will take some degree of umbrage or offense to this no matter who they support.
How does this hurt democracy?
It is a legal accident that corporate personhood was established in the first place. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corp...
While corporations are not flesh and blood people, we as humans can certainly define intangible entities into existence. They are still made up of people, but that does not diminish the realness of an entity created only by our civilization's power of words and ideas.
I think people should have rights; not inanimate entities. I think corporate personhood is one of the most egregious mistakes ever committed by humanity as it has allowed living people to no longer be accountable for their crimes. I also think it's too late to fix -- if the USA eliminated corporate personhood, the stock market would crash and there would be a mass exodus of corporations to more business friendly countries.
It's not a hopeless situation though; there will continue to be restrictions on the rights of corporations. I'm optimistic that Congress is going to overturn this most recent Supreme Court decision.
We could be doing more. As an important first step, I suggest a drastically increased use of the corporate death penalty, starting with multiple-time convicted felon (and statistical mass-murderer) Pfizer. If Pfizer was a flesh and blood person, it would be spending a very long time in prison. Instead, it has only paid some of the largest criminal settlements in DoJ history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer
Blackstone's Commentaries (11th edition, 1791), volume 1, p. 467 (ch. 18, "Of Corporations"):
"We have hitherto considered persons in their natural capacities, and have treated of their rights and duties. But, as all personal rights die with the person; and, as the necessary forms of investing a series of individuals, one after another, with the same identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable; it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality.
These artificial persons are called bodies politic, bodies corporate, . . . or corporations: of which there is a great variety subsisting, for the advancement of religion, of learning, and of commerce; in order to preserve entire and for ever those rights and immunities, which, if they were granted only to those individuals of which the body corporate is composed, would upon their death be utterly lost and extinct." (my emphasis)
I cite Blackstone, no small figure in either legal history or the law undergirding the U.S. constitution, to emphasize that he regarded it as central to the idea of what constitutes a corporation that it was to be treated as a legal "person." This is found in my 1791 edition of this work.
Thus, this doctrine is hardly new or radical and certainly no one felt the need to mock it over the 200+ years during which it has been in effect by suggesting that a corporation exercise rights of a citizen by running for office.
All that said, I understand your point about its being claimed that this doctrine was accidentally incorporated into the Court's constitutional analysis but the core doctrine runs much, much deeper than the particular case cited in your linked article and (as reflected in the Blackstone quote) is and always has been fundamental to understanding the legal idea of a corporation.
I think you need to look more deeply into the history of human mistakes.
I'm not sure how to further answer you and similarly-concerned people in the larger sense, though. Of all the legal and political problems in the US, I consider the issue of corporate personhood to be deeply trivial, and I'm dismayed and angered that people would restrict the free speech of actual human beings out of fear of a legal fiction.
The way our particular laws have been written and interpreted by the Supreme Court, then yes, these things are indeed tied together. But there's no particular reason why one could not have a legal system with one and not the other. That's the entire point of the OP.
Why exactly is unrestricted freedom of speech a necessary condition for corporate immunity? Assume you are building a constitution from scratch: Can you construct an argument for why you can't have corporate immunity without corporate freedom of speech, without referring to existing US case law?
Yes, but if it's a matter of "a corporation should have some rights a human has, but not other rights", we're already there. The idea that corporation has all human rights is already transparently false. For one thing, anything that requires a "citizen" is going to be something they can't do.
Anyone who thinks that we've transitioned from "corporations have some of the rights of humans" to "corporations have all of the rights of humans" is emoting, not thinking. We've gone from one subset of rights, to another, to yet a third.
And they still have responsibilities, and in fact have some responsibilities that normal citizens don't have. The casual presumption, for those that are so presuming, that this particular transition is some sort of unique disaster or major shift in the balance of rights v. responsibilities is not justified.
The OP is talking about an election in the US, not about some ex nihilo society.
I find your questions rather confused; you may wish to research the issue further.
But "corporate immunity and corporate free speech come from the same legal doctrine" is a lot different from saying "you can't have corporate immunity without corporate free speech". The latter is what you said, but your argument supports the former. Are you sure I'm the one who is confused?
I'm not actually saying that, despite your misunderstanding.
Beyond that, I'm not interested in discussing built-from-scratch legal systems.
Your last sentence surprised me, though. Clean-slate thought experiments are useful to figure out whether you're doing something because it's the best way to do it, or just because of legacy. That goes for both code and law.
In particular, some of the other critics of the Citizens United decision, including ones who are a little more serious and a little less playful than the OP, are talking about a long-term campaign for a constitutional amendment to address this issue (I'm in particular talking about Larry Lessig and Change Congress, but there are others). Such efforts might be political longshots, but how do you engage in discussions with them if you don't want to consider all the ways the law could be radically different, or could have evolved entirely differently?
Human political freedom in the US is something I'm interested in, and I'm not actually interested in wandering off the topic. I would hope someone engaging me in discussion on the issue wouldn't try to pull off into other directions - that would be disengaging.
Also, you're right.
Try googling +ussc "supreme court". It's a less-used, but real initialism.
Deep down, I think this is the issue that many have a problem with: Shareholders aren't responsible for the actions of this entity.
I would love to see some more work done on attaching the legal liability of corporations to individuals that are subject to full and proper citizenship. Yes I realize what I'm saying, I think it's ultimately unethical to suggest otherwise though.
This is already the case for most small businesses. (sole proprietors)
This is not to say that your conclusion must be invalid, just that this line of reasoning is suspect.
Corporations most certainly did exist, and without a doubt engaged in political activity. While the doctrine of corporate personhood and the equivalence between money and speech are later inventions, it's not clear that the founders would have supported a reading of the Constitution that allows bans on corporate (or any other) political speech. Especially since it was common practice at the time, and continued to be a practice after the ratification of the Constitution.
Corporations are businesses. They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions. They do not require free speech.
Better not to give government that power at all. It may leave room for people you don't like to do things you don't like but freedom is messy.
Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And so...?
Both of your claims can't be true.
EDIT: Sorry, down-voters, they can't both be true. Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities.
Not that this is any different from anything a company does. No matter how much freedom each employee has, they have no freedom to act against the interest of their employer.
I wish people would honestly make that argument instead of resorting to the prior ridiculous rhetoric.
"Not that this is any different from anything a company does."
Or any organization.
Let's take Exxon. http://www.google.com/finance?q=exxon
Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of? Are they all American citizens, for example? Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?
Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of.
"Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?"
Why do you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?
1) You mention "Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of."
a) 'the people within it' --> a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it. This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes
b) you could argue for the shareholders --> but, the major shareholders are mostly pension funds etc. Membership to these funds is mandated by employers, with little choice by employees (i.e. most voters).
2) And your 2nd comment: "Why do you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?"
The United States Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?
I did not say it necessarily did, though it's certainly speaking for its leadership, who answers to the human shareholders and is voluntarily associated with the other people in the company.
"This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes"
Indeed. It's a group created for other purposes. Political involvement is a valid avenue for pursuing those purposes, as the political system affects the group.
"If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?"
That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed.
Uhm, huh? Let's say Exxon runs for a seat. During its term, 20% of Exxon is purchased by PetroChina. So now the seat is no longer under American control. The person who was elected to Congress is no longer the same person; legally it is still Exxon, but in reality it is a different person since the new shareholder, who is a foreigner, exerts significant influence.
Or is my reasoning bogus?
You - and many other people in this discussion - are confusing different legal concepts of "person" as well as "citizen". People like those in the linked story are working to encourage that confusion.
However, I am assuming the company in the article is thinking it stands a chance, as evidenced by it spending dollars to test how far it can go. Otherwise they're pretty stupid, which they may very well be.
OK, but your scenario requires that confusion.
The people in the article are engaging in a stunt. They don't expect or intend to win, and they probably won't spend much or long on the campaign.
If the board does not fire them, the shareholders can fire the board.
As for the minority shareholders, they agreed that their property (their portion of the company) would be bound by the decision of the majority subject to the restrictions of the corporate charter.
This was my choice. If I disliked this, I could have made no contribution to the fund, or even quit my job.
[1] I oversimplify. They try to maximize an objective function which penalizes volatility, particularly volatility at the end of the life of the fund.
"The human beings are free to do that on their own. They don't need to speak through the corporations"
This argument can be made as reasonably for every organization and the very act of political organization, from political parties on down to rallies and petitions.
Right, and it takes about half a second of thought to figure out why. And no it's not because of the "liberal media"; it's because unions don't typically have billions of dollars they can use to further their agenda.
Drops in the bucket compared to what their corporate issue adversaries take in. For instance, the minimum revenues of any Fortune 500 company right now is measured in the billions (profits at around half a billion).
Currently unions are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates due to being tax exempt entities, but that doesn't stop them from spending tens of millions of dollars during election campaigns to support the candidates they favor.
And you can say the exact same thing about corporate interests (both individual corporations and their "unions" of trade associations). The only difference is that corporate interests have literally orders of magnitude more money available to pursue their agenda, as well as a disproportionate set of connections in Washington.
Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. Indeed, donations from education interests just barely exceeded those from the entire pharmaceutical industry during that same period (note that this includes soft-money contributions as well). The situation does not appear to be quite as unbalanced as you would suggest.
Sure they are.
According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades.
You're conflating available capital with actual money needed to win. Suppose we're playing cards. If you've got $100 in your pocket and I've got $1000, I can browbeat you out of the game without spending my whole $1000. I only need to spend until you're out of money or, to mix metaphors, until I've bought up all the TV time and drowned out your contributions with the relevant congress members.
If you believe that, please do downvote me and add a comment letting me know how you've come to that conclusion.
National Education Association, PG&E Corp, Service Employees International Union, AT&T Inc., Bank of America, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Microsoft Corp, Chevron Corp
Bonus points for providing actual donation values.
* Spoilers: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
Also note that publicly held corporations represent a large number of individual shareholders as well.
The problem, in my view, isn't that there is too much money in politics, that's merely a symptom. The underlying problem is that government has too much control and influence over everything anybody does. That makes it not only attractive but often necessary to maintain influence with and access to government representatives in order to get along.
Well, yes - many of the people pushing this argument around the country really like labor unions.
"unions don't typically have billions of dollars they can use to further their agenda"
Interestingly, neither do most corporations. Even the biggest aren't going to throw away their profits and alienate ~40% of US consumers (no matter who they pick) by running billion-dollar political ad campaigns.
That's just a variation of the "liberal media" argument I already pre-empted.
Interestingly, neither do most corporations.
Yes they do. At least, the Fortune 100 does.
Corporations and their unions (trade organizations) spend exactly what they need to in order to effectively promote their political interests. If unions had more money to spend, you'd start seeing billion dollar corporate campaigns.
What does the "liberal media" have to do with this? Are you discussing a point or running a partisan script?
In point of fact, "most corporations" are not "the Fortune 100" by definition.
Also, you continue to overestimate the available disposable income they have to spend on enormous political campaigns.
Actually, I was going to ask you the same thing. The general argument that "most of the population likes unions, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" and "the media is liberal, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" are both variations on the same tired theme.
In point of fact, "most corporations" are not "the Fortune 100" by definition.
Obviously. But talking about "most corporations" in some general sense is so broad as to be practically meaningless for the purposes of this conversation.
Also, you continue to overestimate the available disposable income they have to spend on enormous political campaigns.
You're asserting that without proof. My argument (which, to be honest, should be obvious) is that corporate interests generally have far more money available to them than union interests.
Without proof, you're making the remarkable claim that the Fortune 100 companies each have billions of dollars they're ready to throw at political races.
'The general argument that "most of the population likes unions, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" and "the media is liberal, which is why you don't hear this conservative point of view" are both variations on the same tired theme.'
As I didn't say either thing, I must assume you are running a purely partisan script. You won't need my further involvement then, I trust.
"This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "
Furthermore, few seem to understand what the concept of a corporation having some of the legal attributes of a person is about, and how it has almost nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision.
And you see the constant misinformation that corporations are legally obligated to follow whatever path leads to the most profit.
It's just depressing how little people understand about the society they live in.
</half-joking>
And, to be perfectly honest, I think you'll find that self-serving behavior, corruption and malfeasance are just as common in corporations as in politics.
So, uh, consider your fact duly checked. :)
Politicians are mortal, but, worse than that, their political "assets" can be taken away if they don't have high enough approval.
Basically, politicians have an artificially high discount rate; they put a huge premium on certain benefit now over possible benefit later, because they won't be around for the "later".
Corporations have the lowest possible discount rate, because the people who end up owning them (i.e. those who value the stock the most) are the people with the lowest discount rate at that point in time.
Because when things go bad, corporate officials get fired a lot more often than incumbent politicians lose elections.
I'm pretty sure all you have to prove is that a corporation isn't a "person" or a "citizen".
Second, I was replying to the poster talking about presidency, not to the company's bid for congress. The relevant bits for president are No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; The specific word being natural. The basis for corporations being granted personhood the same as a human being is the lack of the word natural in the relevant bits of the US constitution.
Edit: this means that the generic person covers both natural persons and legal persons
All of this really sounds like a lazy engineer inherited from the wrong class...
Deleted comment
"Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an emerging new market.
The campaign’s designated human, Eric Hensal, will help the corporation conform to antiquated “human only” procedures and sign the necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new opportunity. “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.”"
This seems like mockery to me.
... on the other hand, if it isn't satire, I am extremely scared.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al...
"Now that democracy is truly for sale, Murray Hill Incorporated are offering top dollar..."
I think the problem many people have with Citizens United v. FEC is that it opens the door to political activity that seems counter to our long held principal of one man, one vote.
I don't think anyone has a problem with a group of people pooling their resources with the intent to run campaign ads on a given topic or candidate. That's basic democratic activity.
The problem occurs when resources are highly concentrated in an individual such that he can drown out the voice of others.
The natural tradeoff in capitalism is between efficiency and equality: resources are deployed efficiently but the gains are distributed unequally. Capital owners necessarily benefit the most from capitalism. Businesses generally own the most capital in our system; there are a few billionaire individuals, but the vast majority of billionaires are corporations.
So in a campaign system where money buys voter attention, the loudest and most attention-getting speakers will tend to be corporations. These speakers who have disproportionate influence have the ability to control political discourse based more on the size of their megaphone than on the quality of their ideas. This should be troubling to anyone who values enlightenment-era principles like the best ideas winning on their own merits via rational discourse.
In practice, greater influence imbues additional voting power in these speakers, both through direct leverage with Congressional representatives as well as through the power to dominate the airwaves at election time. Large corporations don't have just a few times more influence, they have 3-6 orders of magnitude more influence than the average individual. They meet directly with Senators. When was the last time you had a personal meeting with your Senator?
This is what people mean when they complain that companies can "buy elections" or "buy legislation." I think everyone would agree that this is already occurring. Witness the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act, brought to you by the Disney Corporation. Very few legal scholars would argue that this legislation was in the public interest.
Citizens United opens the door to even greater corporate influence in our political discourse. Many people believe it will only worsen this situation of vastly unequal participation in our democracy.
The point is simple, if extraordinarily difficult for those of us proud of our traditions to accept: this democracy no longer works. Its central player has been captured. Corrupted. Controlled by an economy of influence disconnected from the democracy. Congress has developed a dependency foreign to the framers' design. Corporate campaign spending, now liberated by the Supreme Court, will only make that dependency worse. "A dependence" not, as the Federalist Papers celebrated it, "on the People" but a dependency upon interests that have conspired to produce a world in which policy gets sold.
This is so stupid, people don't understand that groups of people should have the same rights as individuals. The campaign finance laws disallow small groups and small companies to buy advertisements expressing their opinions while allow large groups and companies to setup PACS to do it.
This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your contention.
If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers like the NYT?
But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions, when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve individual people and to make sure that every person gets an equal voice in government.
Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and sales.
!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!
Contrast it with an organization designed to emphasize a certain agenda by collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that interest is directly correlated to its demand.
For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay?
It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders.
However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably increase shareholder value.
On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority.
This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares.
!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!
This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.
For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?
Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate charter.
> It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders.
So isn't pushing agendas that have the sole purpose of increasing shareholder value potentially contradictory to the interests of the general public population of citizens, whom the government are obligated to serve?
> On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority.
Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions.
> This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares.
Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation?
> This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.
Yes we allow individuals to do that. But there is a reason corporations imposing their influence is frowned upon. I think your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you see a company as having the rights of a person. But a company is not a person. A company does not have the same needs as a person and thus it has the possibility of having conflicting interests with those of a citizen. The government is here to provide equal representation for citizens, not arbitrary entities.
> For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?
No because Barack Obama is a human, he is not a corporation. He has a right to speak for human beings' interests because he is one (at least the last time I checked). A company is not a human. It has a distinct non-human character defined by your so called "corporate charter." A corporation accruing power (through money) is different from a human accruing power through money, or otherwise. A corporation does it because it has to, a human does it for a plethora of reasons unknown. But we do know that whatever the human's reasons are, they are because he/she is a human. And the government is supposed to represent the interest of human citizens.
The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it unacceptable chose not to buy shares.
Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable opinions.
The company is acting as a group of people who have agreed to devote a certain amount of their wealth (their initial investment) to work toward a certain purpose (whatever the charter says).
The "company" doesn't actually exist - all there is is a set of contracts between shareholders. The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the shareholders and other parties.
Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to indirectly support segregation?
If you choose to buy products from companies supporting segregation, that's on you. Steve Jobs doesn't have mind control rays. He neither forced you to buy shares or an iPhone.
Also, the issue if your trading partners spending money on causes you dislike is not limited to corporations. For all you know, the owner of your local bakery is a secret racist sending money to the Klan.
You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker news comments, not your computer. The computer is a direct representation of you. A company is a distinct entity created from the collection of people. Your analogy is faulty.
> The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it unacceptable chose not to buy shares.
Yet the charter which is agreed upon is a distinct entity concocted by human beings. At best it's a monster like frankenstein.
> The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the shareholders and other parties.
Yet the company is also a distinct entity.
Look the US government guarantees rights to individuals, not groups or corporations. Groups that come together for a common interest only amplify their voice by the collective pooling of their individual voices. A corporation pools those individual voices into a mob, which does something else independent of any one person's will. It's a distinct entity. It is not a human. It does not have rights like a citizen.
I can't stress this enough: the government guarantees certain right to individual people, not groups that can be arbitrarily formed.
And the government is not restricting your rights with it's "no criticizing Obama with a computer" law. It's only restricting the actions of your computer.
A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group of people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms. Incidentally, the government does grant people the right to form groups - it's called "peaceable assembly".
But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?
Also, this brings us back to my (and Robert's) original question: if free speech doesn't apply to corporations, can the government censor the corporate media?
People lose their individuality when participating as part of a mob. A group is a distinct entity formed by a mob. It is not like any of the individual singled out people.
The mob when formed acquires distinct characteristics and behaviors that distinguish it from any individual human being, who may be governed by neurons, emotions, and psychological disorders, etc. A mob can also be potentially a million times more powerful than a single human being, so how can you give such an entity the rights of an individual? Moreover, humans may like chickens and dogs, but a mob, through some freak compromise, decides to satisfy itself by breeding a half dog / chicken. Such a thing would never be concocted at the individual level, but is potentially possible at the mob level. And if it works out, it could actually be the most logical solution to satisfy the mob (an entity).
> But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?
That depends. If the sole purpose of you publishing your paper is to advance the factional agendas of NYU, AND if NYU acknowledges that your paper is speaking for NYU, the entity, then yes. But that doesn't mean you can't personally publish the paper. The only thing that can be potentially forbidden is NYU, using it's power to give your paper more voice and merit than it deserves. However if you are publishing it personally, then no such regulation can happen because constitutionally your rights are protected.
Remember the focus is not on the company, it's on what the company creates when it is a formation of a bunch of people. It creates a distinct entity which usually ends up being a compromise of its constituents wishes. People act differently in a group, they can lose their humanity, and usually there's less responsibility for misdeeds. This thing the mob creates should in no way be treated on the same level as any individual constituent of it. This is because, as I have tried to show you, it is not simply a vessel of any single human being.
If so, then why allow any advertisement at all?
If something is beneficial to the people, the people will vote for it. It's the fundamental of democracy.
"Not only that, but if I make money selling porn, do you want me to use my power accrued from people's lust to be used to promote some agenda completely unrelated like say... teaching creationism? People need porn, but most people don't want creationism. So should porno buyers be forced to indirectly support creationism?"
Even if you're just a clerk in a porn store or a model on a porn site, customers are equally "forced" to support whatever you do with your paycheck.
When I give money to a company, I am in no way "forced" to support anything the company or any employee does afterward. I've spent my money; it's theirs, now, not mine.
If I really don't like what they do, I can avoid buying from them.
And groups of people constantly express their opinions in synchrony. We call them political parties.
Remember that in the various flavours of democracy, the indivdiual votes and make their opinions heard. These individuals, regardless of their company affiliation, can vote.
I'm sure you've heard of the saying to separate business and personal stuff. Well that is the problem. Companies legally have to do what's in the companies own profit seeking interest. This is in the hopes that some of that profit seeking rubs off in benefit to society, but it's not directly resultant in benefit to society. Furthermore you can't treat a company as representative of the interests of a group of people because the company is an entity itself. The companies decision making is governed by rules and policies interpreted by the people running it. The people who run it have personal agendas, but when running the companies they have to do it a specific way for a specific set of interests. These interests conflict with those of a normal human being living in the United States.
The company is an entity, but not a citizen. It's characterized by policies and rules, and furthermore those policies and rules seek a well defined interest: profit.
2. Companies do not have to seek profit at all costs, public corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but even then there is great leeway in what they're allowed to do.
Companies do not share the same needs as a human citizen. Companies, as individual entities, do NOT share the same interests as a human citizen. Therefore companies cannot be given the same right to serve or lobby the people's interests.
Companies accrue their powers from means unrelated to potential agendas they push. Which means the voice of their agendas can potentially be inflated.
Secondly even if their agendas are directly related to how they get their power, then their agenda is directly related to corporate interest, because they get their power from profit.
From the article on the original ruling: “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
I completely agree with you in that companies should be able to broadcast whatever message they want. After all it's the responsibility of the citizens to determine what's right.
But I think you're missing the point of my contention. I'm simply saying companies cannot be treated as a citizen in a government designed to serve the people. I'm saying companies are entities, and they are not a human being. They do not need to be fed food, or sleep, or care about people's suffering (unless it would be fiscally wise to do so).
For a voter to have influence, they have to survive for eighteen years and then find their way to a polling place.
And what would you propose as alternative to permitting everyone living in this country long enough to reach adulthood to cast their their own vote?
That would be fucking insane.