One of the Occupy Wall Street slogans was “corporations are not people.” But what does this mean? People have a variety of rights, including the right to sign (and be obligated by) contracts, the right to free speech, and the right to vote. When the Supreme Court decided that corporations are persons (as it did in 1819), the court meant that corporations have some of these rights (such as the right to sign contracts), but not others (such as the right to vote, which is reserved to “citizens,” not “people”).
When Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend,” he didn’t mean it in a legal sense but in the sense that corporations are made up of people and corporate profits eventually end up in the hands of at least some of those people.
The question is: where do we draw the line? If we deny corporations the right to contract, then corporations could not exist, as the whole point of corporations is for investors and managers to contract with one another. While some may think eliminating corporations is a good idea, without corporations most goods would be a lot more expensive and it is likely that wealth would be even more concentrated in the hands of a few because only those with wealth would be able to invest in productive activities that could return large profits.
Impotence Shots Impotence Shots or Injections- http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/testimonial/used-car-purchase/ cialis online prices Impotence injections came into existence in 19th century. His diaries tell a lot about his somewhat dysfunctional family, his ambition why not try this out buy cheap levitra to be a poet, his love for cleanliness and being completely opposite of his mom. The joint dysfunction is mastercard tadalafil treated in a different way, they struggle to accomplish tasks that are necessary for pregnancy. They should take them to price of levitra the best restaurants and to buy expensive name brand clothing. Occupy Wall Street’s more overt goal is to overturn Citizens United v. FTC, the Supreme Court decision that held that Congress could not limit political spending by corporations. The Supreme Court has already held that the Fifth Amendment right to self-incriminate and the right to privacy do not apply to corporations. So why should the First Amendment right to free speech apply?
First of all, corporations are voluntary associations of people, so to deny rights to corporations is the same as denying those rights to the people in those corporations. Non-profit corporations, including churches, charities, unions, and many universities, are also corporations, so any rights denied to Exxon-Mobil will also be denied to groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Educational Association. (Citizens United was a non-profit corporation.)
If corporations are denied First Amendment rights, would any associations of people be allowed First Amendment rights? For example, would limited partnerships or family-owned companies be allowed such rights? Koch, Bechtel, Hearst, and Publix are all privately held companies that could easily abandon the corporate form, if they haven’t already, so they could express their First Amendment rights. Until a couple of years ago, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were both privately held, and could easily return to that status if needed. Most of Ford Motor Company’s voting stock is family owned, and it could become privately held without too much pain.
The point is that any scheme to take First Amendment Rights away from some associations of people would require that First Amendment Rights be taken from all associations of people. If that were the case, then the only organizations able to express freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be the government–which would not be a good thing.
“It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience,” wrote Henry David Thoreau, “but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.” Efforts to solve problems by denying First Amendment rights to corporations or anyone are likely to only make those problems worse.
Corporations are a body politic, but they are not people.
The Antiplanner:
The question is: where do we draw the line? If we deny corporations the right to contract, then corporations could not exist, as the whole point of corporations is for investors and managers to contract with one another. While some may think eliminating corporations is a good idea, without corporations most goods would be a lot more expensive and it is likely that wealth would be even more concentrated in the hands of a few because only those with wealth would be able to invest in productive activities that could return large profits.
No need to eliminate corporations.
But that does not mean (at least in my opinion) that they are entitled to First Amendment protections.
Corporations having free speech rights?
Next thing you know they will say corporations have free press rights, such as New York Times Inc., Washington Post Inc., CBS Inc., ABC Inc., NBC Inc., CNN Inc., Fox News Inc., Current TV Inc., etc.
Next thing you know they will say corporations have free exercise of religion rights, such as US Catholic Church Inc., local Jewish Temple Inc., Ground Zero Mosque Inc., etc.
Why? Can’t you tell the difference between a corporation and some other kind of association? The IRS doesn’t seem to have trouble telling the difference. Why would that be so hard for the Supreme Court?
Church’s are a corporation, they’re selling you salvation (at least trying to).
Anyway try to imagine quality or cost of consumer goods without corporations. We’d still be in a world of trade guilds. Guilds negatively affected quality, skills, and innovation. And in economic history guilds began to vanish when industry was allowed to thrive. Guilds persisted over the centuries because they redistributed resources to politically powerful merchants. The exclusive privilege of a guild to produce certain goods prevented consumer goods from declining in cost. When emerging technologies allowed workers to accomplish the same feats as guild members, their power waned. Guilds persisted not because they benefited the entire economy but because they benefited the owners, who used political power to protect them. They regulated trade for their own benefit, were monopolies, distorted markets, fixed prices, and restricted entrance into the guild. Guild’s hire apprentice’s but long apprenticeships were unnecessary to acquire skills, and their conservatism reduced the rate of innovation and made the society poorer. Just imagine how much a car or even a toaster or vacuum cleaner would cost if the entire thing had to be assembled by hand. Guilds still exist… In the United States guilds exist in several fields. The Screen Actors Guild, Writers Guild of America, East and the Writers Guild of America, West are capable of exercising very strong control in Hollywood because a very strong and rigid system of intellectual property rights exists. These guilds exclude other actors and writers who do not abide by the strict rules for competing within the film and television industry in America which is why movies are now so expensive to make.
Maybe one day this decision will be overturned, but not in the forseeable future. Especially not now as the decision heavily favors the few at the top. IMHO.
DS
Taxation without representation.
We feel compelled to tax corporations on many levels including income, property, payroll, etc, yet we would deny them political speech and representation.
Sounds like a rallying cry to me.
To me the problem with Citizen United is not corporate personhood, but the definition of “speech.” Who knew that purchasing political influence, policy decisions and politicians with no disclosure to anybody but to those that receive the money was an exercise in free speech?
This my friends, is the epitome of plutocracy in action.
This is another example of SCOTUS getting it wrong, to be filed with Dred Scott, Korematsu, and on and on.
Individuals are people under the constitution. Collections of individuals cannot be an individual person. It’s a ludicrous proposition.
It’s mind boggling how the federal government, over the past two centuries, set up the oligarchical, oppressive, corporatist state that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that it was essential to free speech that the NAACP Inc. could keep its donor list secret.
Today some people in California want to find out who donated to defeating Proposition Eight and punish them.
Which side should be protected by the Free Speech Clause of the US Constitution? If you are more interested in free speech than political leanings, it is a hard question to define what associations of people are “evil” and which are “good”.
Sandy,
Good point. I’m thinking in the same vein as Mr. O’Toole in that it’s a matter of where to draw the line. It makes sense that in the 60’s the individuals donating to the NAACP remain anonymous, but it doesn’t make sense (to me) that the NAACP remains anonymous in which politicians and policies they donate to. I feel the same way about Focus on the Family and prop 8.
I’m not sure where exactly to draw the line, but I do know that the difference between one individual and the NAACP, Focus on the Family, GE, EXXON, ACLU, labor unions, etc. is VAST and the same rules should NOT apply. Hence campaign finance reform…
“To me the problem with Citizen United is not corporate personhood, but the definition of “speech.†Who knew that purchasing political influence, policy decisions and politicians with no disclosure to anybody but to those that receive the money was an exercise in free speech?”
Bennett, speech is not defined by the motive of the speaker. Speech is just speech; why someone said something or how much they are willing to spend to say it is neither here nor there. Why are the motives and the finances of the speaker so important? Why not take the speech at its face value or leave it. The reader, viewer or listener has duty to be discerning about the speech and establish it’s veracity. It’s veracity is not dependent on who financed it. Those who demand full disclosure of the financing of speech miss the forest for the trees.
You also conflate speech on someones behalf with purchasing influence. Because a person or group of persons chooses to engage in speech on behalf of a candidate, that does does not equate to purchasing political influence. But for the sake of argument suppose it’s true. Any donation is a purchase of political influence. Do you object to donations in principle or just donations that fit your notion of what is an appropriate donation?
Jardinero1 asks:
“Do you object to donations in principle or just donations that fit your notion of what is an appropriate donation?”
Honestly, the latter. Again, hence campaign finance reform, which IMHO, was a great idea and law. Also, re:”…how much they are willing to spend…does not equate to purchasing political influence.” Really? Maybe not in the poli-sci 101 Constitutional Theory class, but it sure works that way on the hill (save a few here and there).
p.s.
Speech.
noun
1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one’s thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture
2. the act of speaking
3. something that is spoken; an utterance, remark, or declaration
4. a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose
5. any single utterance of an actor in the course of a play, motion picture, etc.
Obviously the context of speech need be expanded for constitutional sake, but again, where do we draw the line, and has the line already been drawn in the wrong place?
Shocking though it may be, Frank and I agree.
And the result of Santa Clara is eventually Citizens United and likely a couple more decisions, where oligarchs can hide their money and influence. I wonder if the wall-to-wall corporate ads on TV/radio/corporate media come warm weather will reenergize the 1% conversation and actually impel some societal changes, or another reality show will be rolled out to distract the public.
:o\
DS
Frowny face didn’t look like that in preview!
DS
Sorry, Sandy, Bennett and all the reformists out there. The problem with circumscribing the speech of those so called corporate interests and people you think of as bad is threefold:
1.Those who you would circumscribe or limit can use the same rules to do it to you.
2. It results in absurdities which make criminals out of people acting in good faith. For example, under current law, if you print some signs for your favorite federal candidate and post them without disclosing them as a donation you are subject to quite severe criminal penalties for yourself and the campaign of your federal candidate.
3. Those who you think of as bad, might actually be good and representing your best interests. I own shares of common stock, own multiple lines of insurance, have an interest in more than one pension, have an interest in more than one non-profit and by golly, I want to be sure they are allowed to zealously promote theirs and my best interests.
Nope, no campaign finance reform for me. Unlimited spending and donations from anybody to anybody and I don’t care about disclosure. Listen to the message not the messenger, judge the elected officials by their actions in office, not by who their donors are.
Jardinero, despite Randal erroneously asserting corporations became people in 1819 (we aren’t discussing contracts here, but the 14th Amd), it was post Civil War – Reconstruction society that gave us this ruling and the notes thereupon that give us this unfortunate problem today. perhaps it has resonance with a certain small ideology because it all arose out of taxation.
At any rate, with this SCOTUS crew today,it is far from certain that we are truly guaranteed free speech.
DS
“1. 1.Those who you would circumscribe or limit can use the same rules to do it to you.”
Exactly! Set a cap for everyone and every group. No exceptions. I’m not circumscribing the limit to one group but to every group.
“2. It results in absurdities which make criminals out of people acting in good faith…”
Disclosure isn’t really necessary particularly if there is a cap. Also, If you put a sign in your front yard, that is a clear declaration and would meet a rational definition of “speech”.
“3. …I want to be sure they are allowed to zealously promote theirs and my best interests.”
At all costs? How is this not plutocracy again? Oh wait, we get to vote… for this plutocrat or that shill backed by monied interests. How is this not plutocracy again?
You only get 1 vote, why not 1 amount you can contribute to each candidate?
Bennett,
1. In federal elections there are caps already. And people circumvent the caps with bundling, and PAC’s, and now Super PAC’s. You can write more rules, limiting the rule beaters but then you get in arms race to beat the rules and make more rules for the rule beaters and on and on.
And if you are going to cap contributions. What about in-kind contributions? Say Randall editorializes for a candidate, on this blog, which he already capped out on dollar contributions. That editorial has some dollar value, right What if the NYT endorses a candidate, what’s the value of that? Does it beat the cap?
2. I cite the current law, which includes the caps. If you have caps, then disclosure is also demanded, otherwise there is no way of knowing if the caps have been exceeded.
3. Plutocracy, when it occurs, only occurs when there is an over-arching, over-powerful government. If you fear plutocracy, then the solution is limiting the government, not the people.
Jardinero1,
All good points.
1. As for PAC/Super PAC’s acting on behalf of candidates, the idea that they act “independently” of the candidate themselves is laughable. The law is so wishy washy it’s a joke. I don’t have faith that the current law is good enough or that it’s being enforced. It’s a fight I think is worth fighting (on and on I suppose).
I’m not an economist, so I don’t try (or assume) that there is a dollar amount that can be attributed to everything and anything. But forget that, you said it first, “Speech is just speech,” and to me endorsements and editorials clearly fall under the actual and legal definitions of “speech.” Secretly giving someone money meets the legal definition according to SCOTUS, and I disagree. I think there is a big difference between free speech and lining the pockets of politicians for political favors and if in-kind contributions, endorsements, editorials or cash contributions are given under a quid pro quo agreement (WHICH I BELIEVE IS RAMPANT, and you apparently deny) the ethical framework of our system is compromised.
2. Okay, you win. Caps and disclosure go hand in hand. I’d still take it.
3. Plutocracy, when it occurs, only occurs when the wealthy minority may exert influence OVER the political arena. In today’s US Government major contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government appointments and many politicians go on to lobby on behalf of their major contributors. It’s a revolving door at the top, serving the interests at the top. From where I’m standing, that’s what’s occurring.
The law is so wishy washy it’s a joke.
Which is why Colbert is making a joke out of it.
DS
Stephen Colbert has a Super PAC which you can contribute to:
http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/
Dan, it might surprise you to realize I actually often agree with you. It’s your delivery that has caused me to challenge you, and it’s not my role to police this blog. I guess in my work life, things are so caustic and filled with literally puerile insults, that I really a place without emotional grenades, a place where ideas are actually discussed. Again, it’s not right for me to try to impose that on these discussions. I apologize for using insulting language and look forward to discussing the actual issues I care about, the details of planning not being one of those.
Adam,
Why? Because if you let some kinds of associations have free-speech rights, but not corporations, then corporations will just create front-groups constituted as whatever kind of association is allowed those rights. It is all or nothing, and nothing is probably best as disenfranchising all associations would leave most people completely out of the system.
It was never a rights issue, it was a due process issue. The case should have been remanded down to contracts law. No person in that corporation, shareholders, officers, worker, anyone, was ever denied the right of free speech. The plaintiffs could not find one instance where a corporate office was prevented from showing the film to friends and neighbors, even on election day. No rights violation, ever, never in the entire case.
If they had a problem with their government corporate contract, then go to contracts court.
The whole issue was legal stupidity, something has happened to the Surpremes, these idiot are dim bulbs.
Just to continue. Imagine that a corporate worker, took the film as his/her own and tried to publish it on election day, say dressed as an evolved ape. Would that person be denied rights? If the election laws are unconstitutional, then yes. But the law applied had absolutely nothing to do with corporations and had a lot to do with a physical person attempting to violate, right or wrong, the election law.