News Biggest thing wrong with America: corporations being considered citizens

[KingNothing]

Obviously we've got many problems. But I feel that this is the worst.

Since corporations are viewed as citizens, they can invest an unlimited amount to any political campaign or party. Because the outcome of an election has significant implications for the revenue of a corporation, it is in a corporation's best interest to change the result of the election.

This means that those who can win this battle will tend to make more money, and those who lose will eventually die out. Greater disparity of wealth, greater power for those corporations. Currently we are becoming more and more disparate in our distribution of wealth. I believe this will naturally continue, until political parties are controlled entirely by the wealthiest-of-the-wealthy.

Although I do not believe a disparity in wealth distribution is inherently bad, I do believe that a single voter is losing power, and that the government's role in promoting the overall health of the country is becoming an afterthought.

 

[KingNothing]

In addition, I believe the idea of a corporation simultaneously being a citizen and having limited liability is inherently flawed.

 

[Drakkith]

Isn't it the owners/CEO's of a company who do this? Meaning that it is a person donating, not the whole corporation? If I worked for Kellogs or whatever, and the CEO donated 2 million to a campaign fund, that doesn't mean that everyone in the company wanted to donate, only the person in charge. In effect, it is their money isn't it? As long as they pay their people and bills, any leftover money is theirs correct? Whats different about this and a big rich guy who doesn't own a company donating? They could easily want the same things or share the same views. And pretty much everyone at every level votes or donates to the party that benefits themselves or their views the most. I don't see much of any problem with this.

 

[KingNothing]

Isn't it the owners/CEO's of a company who do this? Meaning that it is a person donating, not the whole corporation?

No, this is certainly not the case. The money is being donated by the corporation itself, and in many cases the money spent is many times greater than the total salaries and bonuses paid to it's top executives. In fact, I've worked for such a company.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The views or goals of a privileged few are leveraged using the wealth of the many without their consent.

When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political choice or statement.

 

[Drakkith]

No, this is certainly not the case. The money is being donated by the corporation itself, and in many cases the money spent is many times greater than the total salaries and bonuses paid to it's top executives. In fact, I've worked for such a company.

What I'm saying is that it's the executives that are in charge of that money, correct? It might not be their own pocket money, but they still decide what happens to it. Kind of like how if I owned my own business, I would control all profits from that business to do whatever I want with it. Anything from expanding my business to blowing it on a boat or whatever. Like I said, if the company is paying its bills and its employees, the rest is for whatever the owner or executives to do with what they please.

 

[Drakkith]

The views or goals of a privileged few are leveraged using the wealth of the many without their consent.

When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political choice or statement.

What wealth of the many? That wealth ceased to be theirs the moment they paid for something, whether it be stocks or an actual product. Thats pretty much the agreement made if you buy stocks. You buy a piece of the company, but you don't decide the day to day runnings of the company or where the money goes. Don't like that company? Sell your stock.

 

[Phrak]

The views or goals of a privileged few are leveraged using the wealth of the many without their consent.

When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political choice or statement.

You wish.

You are doing both.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You wish.

You are doing both.

But that is not what drives markets. What drives markets are profit, not social or political choices. These are effectively hidden variables in the investment scheme.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What wealth of the many? That wealth ceased to be theirs the moment they paid for something, whether it be stocks or an actual product. Thats pretty much the agreement made if you buy stocks. You buy a piece of the company, but you don't decide the day to day runnings of the company or where the money goes. Don't like that company? Sell your stock.

The wealth did not cease to be mine. I still own a part of that company, but my position is not represented in matters of political influence.

It may make sense for a tuna company to kill all dophins for the greatest profit [they interfere with tuna fishing]. Does my investing in that company mean that in principle I condone killing all dolphins?

Am I given a political agenda when I buy stock?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My ability to make money is limited by my political positions? Is this how a free market is supposed to work? Please show me the economic models that account for this. If I want to buy stock, in effect, I have to vote?

 

[Drakkith]

The wealth did not cease to be mine.

The wealth in the form of money did. Had you kept the money you would still have the wealth. You still HAVE wealth, but not in a monetary form. You would have to sell your stock and get money for it to get that form of wealth back. Unfortunently, wealth in the form of stocks tend to fluctuate in value much more than money itself does.

But don't think that your wealth is being used by someone without your consent. You gave your consent just by buying the stock in the first place. Your money is theirs to use unless you are in a position to decide or help decide issues like this. Like I said, if you don't like the company, sell your stock.

My ability to make money is limited by my political positions?

What? What do you mean by this? Your ability to make money is based on your decisions in life, some of which may have something to do with politics, most of which will not.

If I want to buy stock, in effect, I have to vote?

No, but you do have to acknowledge that the decisions of the executives are NOT yours and they may do things you don't want them to do, and not just in political issues.

Does my investing in that company mean that in principle I condone killing all dolphins?

No, of course not. I don't know how you got that from my post as it completely opposite of what I was trying to get across.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In addition, I believe the idea of a corporation simultaneously being a citizen and having limited liability is inherently flawed.

The corporation is not the one with limited liability. Limited liability refers to the investors in that they are only financially liable in so far as their invested capital. Beyond that no matter what financial or legal troubles the corporation has the stockholders will not be further held liable as individuals. Some people create LLCs for this exact purpose, so that they can run their business and if it gets into trouble their debtors can only legally go after the corporation and their personal assets will be safe. You could, in a sense, say that the corporation has "limited liability" in that you can not jail a corporation so no matter what illicit activity a corporation gets up to (or "just certain rogue individuals" within it of course) the corporation can only be fined.

Isn't it the owners/CEO's of a company who do this? Meaning that it is a person donating, not the whole corporation?

No, this is certainly not the case. The money is being donated by the corporation itself, and in many cases the money spent is many times greater than the total salaries and bonuses paid to it's top executives. In fact, I've worked for such a company.

Its not "donations" exactly. Any campaign donations are limited to a certain amount by campaign finance law. The issue you seem to be referring to is a little loophole where any individual may spend an unlimited amount of their own money on their own campaign on behalf of any politician they wish as a matter of free speech which effectively sidesteps the campaign donation limit. It was the focus of the recent Citizen's United case before the Supreme Court that there was a law preventing such campaigns carried out by corporations within, I believe, 30 days of the election date. This was intended to prevent corporations from using last minute well funded ad campaigns to attempt to swing elections. The law was struck down as a violation of free speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The wealth in the form of money did. Had you kept the money you would still have the wealth. You still HAVE wealth, but not in a monetary form. You would have to sell your stock and get money for it to get that form of wealth back. Unfortunently, wealth in the form of stocks tend to fluctuate in value much more than money itself does.

But don't think that your wealth is being used by someone without your consent. You gave your consent just by buying the stock in the first place. Your money is theirs to use unless you are in a position to decide or help decide issues like this. Like I said, if you don't like the company, sell your stock.



What? What do you mean by this? Your ability to make money is based on your decisions in life, some of which may have something to do with politics, most of which will not.



No, but you do have to acknowledge that the decisions of the executives are NOT yours and they may do things you don't want them to do, and not just in political issues.



No, of course not. I don't know how you got that from my post as it completely opposite of what I was trying to get across.

There is an issue in that commercial corporations are likely only going to finance campaigns that are likely to aid them financially. So you can not really know a corporations politics. It could be wagering on a democrat one election and a republican the next. It all depends on who it thinks is going to benefit them the most financially. Many major corporations and lobbies donate to both sides of the aisle in any given election.

 

[mikelepore]

Capitalists want to be able to turn on and turn off the idea of corporate personhood according to convenience. When it means acquiring more legal rights, they want to say that a corporation is a person. However, when a corporation gets caught breaking the law or recklessly endangering public safety, suddenly their position is: Society shouldn't consider punishing us! A corporation is just a file of paperwork. It wouldn't make sense to punish some sheets of paper! The only involvement of the owners is the remote and passive role of investing capital. No actual human beings are responsible for this offense that the legal entity has committed.

 

[xxChrisxx]

What I'm saying is that it's the executives that are in charge of that money, correct? It might not be their own pocket money, but they still decide what happens to it. Kind of like how if I owned my own business, I would control all profits from that business to do whatever I want with it. Anything from expanding my business to blowing it on a boat or whatever. Like I said, if the company is paying its bills and its employees, the rest is for whatever the owner or executives to do with what they please.

This is an odddistinction. It also doesn't make sense. Having control of something doesn't make it yours.

Profits to stockholders are paid as dividends. So until it's in their bank account it's not their money. If something is paid from the corporate wallet, its the corporation who is paying, not the individual. It may be an individual (or group) decision to donate money, but it's not the individuals money to donate if it comes directly from the company account.

Depending on capital gains tax laws in the US, this could be a significant distinction, or it could be irrelevent.

 

[Drakkith]

Capitalists want to be able to turn on and turn off the idea of corporate personhood according to convenience. When it means acquiring more legal rights, they want to say that a corporation is a person. However, when a corporation gets caught breaking the law or recklessly endangering public safety, suddenly their position is: Society shouldn't consider punishing us! A corporation is just a file of paperwork. It wouldn't make sense to punish some sheets of paper! The only involvement of the owners is the remote and passive role of investing capital. No actual human beings are responsible for this offense that the legal entity has committed.

Of course someone is responsible. Usually its the person who committed the offense. Corporations don't do anything, people do.

 

[Drakkith]

This is an odddistinction. It also doesn't make sense. Having control of something doesn't make it yours.

Profits to stockholders are paid as dividends. So until it's in their bank account it's not their money. If something is paid from the corporate wallet, its the corporation who is paying, not the individual. It may be an individual (or group) decision to donate money, but it's not the individuals money to donate if it comes directly from the company account.

Depending on capital gains tax laws in the US, this could be a significant distinction, or it could be irrelevent.

I see your point. But who decides what to do with that money?

 

[talk2glenn]

No, this is certainly not the case. The money is being donated by the corporation itself, and in many cases the money spent is many times greater than the total salaries and bonuses paid to it's top executives. In fact, I've worked for such a company.

You're making things up as you go along.

Corporations cannot donate "unlimited amounts of money". They are subject to the campaign finance rules as the rest of us, and more. Unlike you and I, corporations and labor unions are still prohibited by law from direct contributions to political candidates. What companies can do is express their own political views publicly, in the form of advertisements, and give indirect contributions to like-minded groups. To paraphrase the majority, if the First Amendment has any weight, its protects the right of citizens to express themselves publicly - individually or in a group - without fear of sanction by the state.

What the Supreme Court found was that individuals do not give up their First Amendment rights when acting collectively. This is common sense; that some folks consider it at all controversial is a testament to the power of feelings over rationality. People become so caught up in ideological loyalty and headline news rhetoric that they'll suspend all common sense in favor of towing the party line. It's quite astonishing wherever it happens, here included. "Corporations" have become faceless, evil, and almost foreign in the popular, liberal consciousness (look at Hollywood movie villian - the Asian or the Russian has been replaced by the corporate exec). Nobody stops to consider that a corporation - from the root cooperate - is nothing more than a legal entity that enables groups of like-minded citizens to work together on a common venture. Indeed, banning cooperatives from making political speech does more to disarm the average person than the wealthy (the opposite of the state intent of progressive-minded speach regulators when they seek to ban cooperative political speech). A rich individual can afford to buy access, while the rest of us cannot. This is why we have these legal bodies: they enable more people to pool resources and achieve ends that are individually unattainable.

As to the suggestion that any company gives "many times the total salaries paid to it's top executives", this can be easily checked, since most contributions are public record. Here is the disclosure site for Target, which totals approximately $465,000 by head math. Does anyone seriously think this comes anywhere close to the amount paid by Target for, say, bathroom cleaning supplies, let alone what it pays its top executives in compensation?

http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?contentId=WCMP04-034171

However, when a corporation gets caught breaking the law or recklessly endangering public safety, suddenly their position is: Society shouldn't consider punishing us!

Say what? What, one wonders, do you imagine the "Limited Liability" in Corporation to mean? The whole point of incorporating is that the company is treated as a legal individual, while the shareholders are shielded from direct liability (subject to exceptions in the law).

This means that corporations can break the law, and that they are punished under the law for doing so.

Nobody's position has ever been that corporations shouldn't be subject to and punishable under the law. This provision is intrinsic to their utility for investors. If you could be held individually responsible for the conduct of every company you ever bought stock in, you probably wouldn't buy a lot of stock. But you can't - the company is responsible, and the limit of your personal liability is the extent of your investment (again, subject to the law - if you had personal knowledge of criminal wrongdoing and didn't do anything about it, you might be indicted as a co-conspirator, for example).

 

[nismaratwork]

The views or goals of a privileged few are leveraged using the wealth of the many without their consent.

When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political choice or statement.

For me, this is a solid, "end of story" statement... the rest is dross.

 

[BobG]

What the Supreme Court found was that individuals do not give up their First Amendment rights when acting collectively. This is common sense; that some folks consider it at all controversial is a testament to the power of feelings over rationality. People become so caught up in ideological loyalty and headline news rhetoric that they'll suspend all common sense in favor of towing the party line. It's quite astonishing wherever it happens, here included. "Corporations" have become faceless, evil, and almost foreign in the popular, liberal consciousness (look at Hollywood movie villian - the Asian or the Russian has been replaced by the corporate exec). Nobody stops to consider that a corporation - from the root cooperate - is nothing more than a legal entity that enables groups of like-minded citizens to work together on a common venture. Indeed, banning cooperatives from making political speech does more to disarm the average person than the wealthy (the opposite of the state intent of progressive-minded speach regulators when they seek to ban cooperative political speech). A rich individual can afford to buy access, while the rest of us cannot. This is why we have these legal bodies: they enable more people to pool resources and achieve ends that are individually unattainable.

Who, exactly, is banding together to make this political speech, though? The image of corporations as faceless is at least in part because it's not clear who is being represented by the corporation.

Modern thought talks about a corporation serving its stakeholders and the shareholders are just one of several stakeholders. In fact, there are at least a few people that feel the evolution of corporate management is designed to protect the managers from the stockholders. They felt strongly enough about to form the United Shareholders Association (USA), which was itself a 501(c) organization formed for the sole purpose of pushing laws to give shareholders back some of the rights they lost because of laws passed to prevent, or at least reduce, hostile takeover of corporations that were "underperforming", with the underperformance in profits being mainly due to such things as high executive salaries, research and development, donating money to the community, and spending money to get more favorable laws passed and unfavorable laws blocked. In other words, leaving things simply to free market forces had gotten a little out of hand, but the response was seen as too much. I doubt that the high executive salaries were the primary reason for so many takeovers, but the opportunity to be booted out by whatever corporation took over theirs at least gave a lot of executives motivation to detest them.

Among all the different stakeholders the executives owe a duty to, their duty to the stockholders is to provide a reasonable return on their investment; not to maximize the profits of the stockholders (which could be counterproductive in the long run), but to provide a reasonable return on their investment. And direct stockholders do have a say in the management of the corporation, but they don't control the corporation. A corporation is a public entity, not a private entity, and all of the stakeholders have to be considered - such as the managers, the workers, the customers, the suppliers, and the community. At least in the present day philosophy; the philosophy that old school stockholders' rights advocates rail against.

And it's a little misleading to say giving corporations the right to speak for shareholders gives "the little guy" a greater say in our government, especially when "the little guy's" main form of investment is through some sort of institutional investment - mutual funds, 401(k)s, or through their pension plan. Their actual investment is giving some institution (i.e. - essentially a management company) money to invest for them since the management company can pool lots of "little guy's" money together so they can actually buy more than 1 share of 1 company. Instead, the "little guys" are buying a bunch of 1/100th shares or 1/1000th shares of a lot of corporations moneywise, but, because they bought that through an intermediary, it's the intermediary that's the actual stockholder, not the people that gave their money to the intermediary.

I don't want to derail the thread into a tangent on corporate management philosophy since there's some positives and negatives to both schools, but it at least raises some pertinent questions about who's First Amendment rights are being protected by protecting corporations' free speech rights. I just have a hard time buying the idea that this somehow is even related to the First Amendment rights of stockholders.

 

[nismaratwork]

The biggest thing wrong with America is the same thing that's wrong with every other country: people run it and live in it.

 

[Al68]

It may make sense for a tuna company to kill all dophins for the greatest profit [they interfere with tuna fishing]. Does my investing in that company mean that in principle I condone killing all dolphins?

No, but it means you chose to transfer the decision-making power over that money to dolphin-killers. Some might say that's the same thing. But you can't voluntarily give someone else control over your money, then claim they have no right to control that money.

If you don't want your money spent a particular way, then don't give it to someone who may spend it that way. Duh!

As far as a corporate personhood, this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. There is a reason the ACLU advocated the position they did (pro-free speech). If you don't understand that position, I would recommend researching it until you do (understand it, not necessarily agree with it).

 

[Vanadium 50]

Who, exactly, is banding together to make this political speech, though?

In the case in question, the corporation was "Citizens United Productions", a group of politically like-minded individuals who pooled their resources to make films expressing their views.

 

[WhoWee]

The views or goals of a privileged few are leveraged using the wealth of the many without their consent.

When I buy stock, I am making a financial bet, not a political choice or statement.

A shareholder can sell their shares - unlike a dues-paying union member. You can't have a legitimate conversation about corporate donations without including unions - especially Government employee unions that are in a position of electing their bosses - can you?

 

[nismaratwork]

No, but it means you chose to transfer the decision-making power over that money to dolphin-killers. Some might say that's the same thing. But you can't voluntarily give someone else control over your money, then claim they have no right to control that money.

If you don't want your money spent a particular way, then don't give it to someone who may spend it that way. Duh!

As far as a corporate personhood, this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. There is a reason the ACLU advocated the position they did (pro-free speech). If you don't understand that position, I would recommend researching it until you do (understand it, not necessarily agree with it).

Ooooh, can you explain their stance on NAMBLA as well?

@WhoWee: Sure we can, just as we can the converse.

edit: You can quit a union, but you end poor. You can sell your shars, but you may end poor. More importantly, a union is meant to represent their workers, a corporation is meant to make a proft... period... end of story. The shareholders own a part of that profit, and the company itself.

 

[WhoWee]

Ooooh, can you explain their stance on NAMBLA as well?

@WhoWee: Sure we can, just as we can the converse.

edit: You can quit a union, but you end poor. You can sell your shars, but you may end poor. More importantly, a union is meant to represent their workers, a corporation is meant to make a proft... period... end of story. The shareholders own a part of that profit, and the company itself.

Yes, a union is meant to represent their members - to increase wages and benefits - work conditions are typically Government reviewed at this point. What is the difference between workers wanting higher wages and greater benefits or shareholders wanting higher dividends or valuation? Both make an investment - workers invest time and shareholders invest capital.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, a union is meant to represent their members - to increase wages and benefits - work conditions are typically Government reviewed at this point. What is the difference between workers wanting higher wages and greater benefits or shareholders wanting higher dividends or valuation? Both make an investment - workers invest time and shareholders invest capital.

What relation does this have to corporate personhood? Unions, however much you want them to be, will never match the scale or power of modern multinantional corporations.

I'm yet to see a union pull a GE and make 14 billion USD without paying a cent of federal taxes.

In addition, a union has a voting system for its every move, oversight, and government control and restrictions. A corporation you buy shares in is JUST a financial investment, not an endorsemnet of their politics or policies except as they relate to legal profit for shareholders.

You should't have to worry about the nutty religious predilictions of Domino's Pizza when you buy a pie (why I can't imagine), or a share of stock. You're buying into the success of a pizza operation, not fundamentalist Christianity. You can argue that lobbying by corporation is one thing, (and boy is it) while totally unrelated interests of a very few C-level exects are NOT.

 

[Al68]

Ooooh, can you explain their stance on NAMBLA as well?

Nope. Have no reason to find out, either. Not related to this thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nope. Have no reason to find out, either. Not related to this thread.

I'd say that the ACLU's poisitions are often only tangentially related to the reality of protecting free speech to be honest, which is why I raise another unsavory entity they defend. So, you say they have a reason to defend corporate "free speech", but they're also in for protecting gatherings of pedophiles... so... maybe you do need to expand on one or another reason.

 

[WhoWee]

What relation does this have to corporate personhood? Unions, however much you want them to be, will never match the scale or power of modern multinantional corporations.

I'm yet to see a union pull a GE and make 14 billion USD without paying a cent of federal taxes.

Have we forgotten about GM?

 

[nismaratwork]

Have we forgotten about GM?

How is that related to GE making billions without taxation?

 

[WhoWee]

How is that related to GE making billions without taxation?

I don't have time to pull the links right now - I believe the number is $46 Billion in tax relief for GM - basically the cost of the union bailout (and I'll avoid the whole bondholder treatment thing again).

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't have time to pull the links right now - I believe the number is $46 Billion in tax relief for GM - basically the cost of the union bailout (and I'll avoid the whole bondholder treatment thing again).

And did they pay most of it back?

Again... how is this related to GM making a fortune in a year without paying? I must be missing some key link here...

 

[Al68]

I'd say that the ACLU's poisitions are often only tangentially related to the reality of protecting free speech to be honest, which is why I raise another unsavory entity they defend. So, you say they have a reason to defend corporate "free speech", but they're also in for protecting gatherings of pedophiles... so... maybe you do need to expand on one or another reason.

The reason the ACLU's position is relevant is because it is representative of the pro-free speech position in general. Obviously, an understanding of that position would be adequate whether or not one reads the ACLU position, I just used it as a representative example. This was recently discussed in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=479041", among many others. There is no reason for me to repeat everything I said there.

And the ACLU's position on other issues has nothing to do with this one. I think the ACLU's position on many other issues is despicable.

 

[WhoWee]

And did they pay most of it back?

Again... how is this related to GM making a fortune in a year without paying? I must be missing some key link here...

Here's a quickie - got to run:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/03/us-gm-taxbreaks-idUSTRE6A161020101103
" (Reuters) - General Motors Co GM.UL can get a tax break of up to $45 billion as part of its U.S. government-financed restructuring, documents filed with federal regulators earlier this year showed."

 

[nismaratwork]

Here's a quickie - got to run:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/03/us-gm-taxbreaks-idUSTRE6A161020101103
" (Reuters) - General Motors Co GM.UL can get a tax break of up to $45 billion as part of its U.S. government-financed restructuring, documents filed with federal regulators earlier this year showed."

Hi, my name is nismaratwork and I'm talking about GE, not GM.

@Al: I don't agree, I think they're to free speech what PETA is to animal rights these days.

 

[Al68]

@Al: I don't agree, I think they're to free speech what PETA is to animal rights these days.

Why would you say you don't agree then follow with a statement I agree with, and doesn't contradict anything I said? Not making much sense here.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why would you say you don't agree then follow with a statement I agree with, and doesn't contradict anything I said? Not making much sense here.

OK, what I mean is that I don't see the ACLU as being really driven by rational pro-speech agendas, much as Ingrid Newkirk turned PETA into a Vegan-Psycho-Centralia.

I'm trying to poke holes in your use of the ACLU as a means to reinforcing your view that corporations should have free speech, to be completely blunt. I admit, we do have a very odd relationship of massive disagreements in our conclusions, while tending to agree on the details. Believe me, I'm still reading the links you gave me and trying to understand.

 

[Al68]

I'm trying to poke holes in your use of the ACLU as a means to reinforcing your view that corporations should have free speech, to be completely blunt.

I never used the ACLU in such a way, so poke holes all you want. I'll even help by pointing out that that would be the classical "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. I agree with the ACLU's position on this issue because I believe it to be correct, not because it came from the ACLU.

I referenced their position because someone else did in that other thread, and it was handy, as a source for those who obviously are unaware of why people disagree with them.

And my view is that government should not restrict political speech, not that "corporations should have free speech". That's like claiming that a printing press should have free speech: it's non-sensical to attribute speech to the tool used for it, in this context.

The "speaker" is always a real flesh and blood person. The corporation is a tool (agent) of the speaker, not the speaker himself.

 

[nismaratwork]

I never used the ACLU in such a way, so poke holes all you want. I agree with the ACLU's position on this issue because I believe it to be correct, not because it came from the ACLU.

I referenced their position because someone else did in that other thread, and it was handy.

And my view is that government should not restrict political speech, not that "corporations should have free speech". That's like claiming the first amendment protects the right of a printing press to free speech: it's non-sensical to attribute speech to the tool used for it.

The "speaker" is always a real flesh and blood person. The corporation is a tool (agent) of the speaker, not the speaker himself.

OK, I can accept that, but tell me how the agenda of (example again) Dominos Pizza's CEO around religion, abortion etc... in any way related to his company, shareholders, etc? If he wants to lobby about pizza and related issues, I could understand how that helps the shareholders.

On the other hand, he often acts in direct opposition to a majority of the country. One man controlling a large entity.

 

[Al68]

OK, I can accept that, but tell me how the agenda of (example again) Dominos Pizza's CEO around religion, abortion etc... in any way related to his company, shareholders, etc?

No, that's a private matter between the CEO and the shareholders, I'm not a party to such decisions. I'm not sure what you mean here, but shareholders chose to give him decision-making power over their money. They can't do so, then claim he shouldn't have control of their money. Plus they can limit his control any way they like in the charter.

Of course, Dominos is a poor example in this context, Citizens United would obviously be a better one, since they actually use shareholder money for political speech.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, that's a private matter between the CEO and the shareholders, I'm not a party to such decisions. I'm not sure what you mean here, but shareholders chose to give him decision-making power over their money. They can't do so, then claim he shouldn't have control of their money. Plus they can limit his control any way they like in the charter.

Of course, Dominos is a poor example in this context, Citizens United would obviously be a better one, since they actually use shareholder money for political speech.

As does Dominos, it's just not the choice of an individual shareholder. In fact, I'd argue that corporate "speech" is actually a means of constraining and limiting individual expression by drowing it our, and co-opting it. I can think of few things more corrosive, and has been said, giving them money as financial investment is just that, unlike union or PAC which is a political action at least in part.

 

[loyyer21]

Only for lawsuits. But they can't vote!

 

[Al68]

As does Dominos, it's just not the choice of an individual shareholder.

No, it's the choice of the agent they gave their decision-making power to. That's the nature of transferring decision-making power to an agent: the agent now gets to make the decisions, subject to the agreement made, which in this case is a private matter and not subject to my personal opinion of it. It's between the parties making the agreement, ie Dominos CEO and the shareholders. If they think the CEO violated the corporate charter, they should sue him. They have standing, you and I don't, unless we are shareholders of Dominos.

In fact, I'd argue that corporate "speech" is actually a means of constraining and limiting individual expression by drowing it our, and co-opting it.

Even if "lotsa" speech is drowning out "itty bitty" speech, the first amendment prohibits government from restricting either.

 

[talk2glenn]

OK, I can accept that, but tell me how the agenda of (example again) Dominos Pizza's CEO around religion, abortion etc... in any way related to his company, shareholders, etc? If he wants to lobby about pizza and related issues, I could understand how that helps the shareholders.

On the other hand, he often acts in direct opposition to a majority of the country. One man controlling a large entity.

This is a red herring. Dominos Pizza has no financial interest in effecting abortion policy, whatever the personal feelings of its CEO. Unless this unrelated political activism was disclosed explicitly to shareholders, the company could never legally lobby in this manner - it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to investors.

The reason for-profit companies lobby is to protect their operations and market. Anyone who beleieves a modern companies bottom line is divorcable from their operating political environment is delusional. No company can expect to compete without an effective say in politics. Given that, corporations have a duty to influence public policy (to their shareholders), and a right to let the public know how policy choices effect them (given that they are publicly held). This is why for-profit companies engage in political speech.

I don't think Ivan or others actually believe it when they say a profit-seeking company has no political interests. There's no way. You'd have to be completely blind to reality. This would be like saying you, as a profit-maximizing, individual have no interest in politics - an obvious falsehood, given the extent of government involvement in your individual finances and financial decisions.

This is altogether different from, say, Citizens United, whose purpose is expressly political. Here, too, the rights of individuals are protected only when the rights of Citizens United are also protected. If, say, George Soros can personally finance a political ad about the myriad benefits of a 100% income tax, why can't Al and I pool resources (through an articles of incorporation) to finance an ad arguing the opposite point? Is George's individual right to political speech greater or more protectable than our aggregate political rights? Granted, we are certainly more dangerous as a group than we are individually, but why is this a bad thing? The only rational purpose to this kind of regulation that I can see, is to limit the political power of individuals (by restricting their ability to organize).

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a red herring. Dominos Pizza has no financial interest in effecting abortion policy, whatever the personal feelings of its CEO. Unless this unrelated political activism was disclosed explicitly to shareholders, the company could never legally lobby in this manner - it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to investors.

The reason for-profit companies lobby is to protect their operations and market. Anyone who beleieves a modern companies bottom line is divorcable from their operating political environment is delusional. No company can expect to compete without an effective say in politics. Given that, corporations have a duty to influence public policy (to their shareholders), and a right to let the public know how policy choices effect them (given that they are publicly held). This is why for-profit companies engage in political speech.

I don't think Ivan or others actually believe it when they say a profit-seeking company has no political interests. There's no way. You'd have to be completely blind to reality. This would be like saying you, as a profit-maximizing, individual have no interest in politics - an obvious falsehood, given the extent of government involvement in your individual finances and financial decisions.

This is altogether different from, say, Citizens United, whose purpose is expressly political. Here, too, the rights of individuals are protected only when the rights of Citizens United are also protected. If, say, George Soros can personally finance a political ad about the myriad benefits of a 100% income tax, why can't Al and I pool resources (through an articles of incorporation) to finance an ad arguing the opposite point? Is George's individual right to political speech greater or more protectable than our aggregate political rights? Granted, we are certainly more dangerous as a group than we are individually, but why is this a bad thing? The only rational purpose to this kind of regulation that I can see, is to limit the political power of individuals (by restricting their ability to organize).

...And this unfortunate reality is a reason to formalize it through a legal fiction?

@Al68: They aren't giving deciision making power to them for anything other than the managemnent of the company itself.

As for "itty bity vs...", my response is: we're not the founders, we don't need to imitate them to the point of donning wigs; the constitution is a living document. It's a twisted series of rulings and interpretions that led to this final ruling, and it's about as relevant to free expression as a dog is to Canis Major.

 

[BobG]

This is a red herring. Dominos Pizza has no financial interest in effecting abortion policy, whatever the personal feelings of its CEO. Unless this unrelated political activism was disclosed explicitly to shareholders, the company could never legally lobby in this manner - it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to investors.

The reason for-profit companies lobby is to protect their operations and market. Anyone who beleieves a modern companies bottom line is divorcable from their operating political environment is delusional. No company can expect to compete without an effective say in politics. Given that, corporations have a duty to influence public policy (to their shareholders), and a right to let the public know how policy choices effect them (given that they are publicly held). This is why for-profit companies engage in political speech.

I don't think Ivan or others actually believe it when they say a profit-seeking company has no political interests. There's no way. You'd have to be completely blind to reality. This would be like saying you, as a profit-maximizing, individual have no interest in politics - an obvious falsehood, given the extent of government involvement in your individual finances and financial decisions.

This is altogether different from, say, Citizens United, whose purpose is expressly political. Here, too, the rights of individuals are protected only when the rights of Citizens United are also protected. If, say, George Soros can personally finance a political ad about the myriad benefits of a 100% income tax, why can't Al and I pool resources (through an articles of incorporation) to finance an ad arguing the opposite point? Is George's individual right to political speech greater or more protectable than our aggregate political rights? Granted, we are certainly more dangerous as a group than we are individually, but why is this a bad thing? The only rational purpose to this kind of regulation that I can see, is to limit the political power of individuals (by restricting their ability to organize).

The Supreme Court decision didn't limit itself just to 501(c)'s organized specifically for political action. I think you're correct that by time you reach the extreme of lobbying for abortion, it would be illegal for reasons unrelated to the Supreme Court decision. There's still a lot of other action that certainly could be legal - lobbying for changes to laws governing corporations that shareholders may or may not agree with, or attacking candidates that the CEO says will pass laws that would hurt the corporation (a person would never know whether those accusations were true or not if the attacks were successful).

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh yeah... no dobut outright lobbying would be illegal, but how about donations to charities that do it for them? A lot of money gets moved around in a variety of fashions, more now (not limited to charity in any way) even to say... schools or textbooks or related lobbies.

This is not rocket science, the money finds a way, but now they don't even have to cover the agenda. The idea that shareholders should have to be engagedin political warfare with the single entity that is te corporation is INSANE.

The idea that modern multinationals with no national allegience should have so much lattitude under the US constitutionis likewise absurd. This is just a right-leaning 'nocturnal emission'.

 

[Al68]

@Al68: They aren't giving deciision making power to them for anything other than the managemnent of the company itself.

If there is an issue regarding the CEO acting in violation of the shareholder agreement, that is a different issue from the issue decided by the court.

As for "itty bity vs...", my response is: we're not the founders, we don't need to imitate them to the point of donning wigs; the constitution is a living document.

What are you talking about? The constitution is the supreme law of the U.S., it is living in the sense that it can be amended, not in the sense that government can act illegally in violation of it.

It's a twisted series of rulings and interpretions that led to this final ruling, and it's about as relevant to free expression as a dog is to Canis Major.

Whether or not the federal government can restrict political speech is irrelevant? Not making sense again.