Biggest thing wrong with America: corporations being considered citizens

[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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

Did you want your money to be used to generate an interest for you, or did you want it to be used to support your political positions?

The company is using your money to maximize its profit over the long term, and therefore your ROI, if you stick with them. Sometimes this involves killing dolphins; other times it involves supporting certain political groups or agendas. If all you want is to maximize your returns, you should be happy with the company's choices. If you care about things other than money, you should sell your stock in that company, and look elsewhere.

 

[BobG]

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).

Just to expand on this, since my first sentence really doesn't say that much. There was no problem with a group such as Citizens United producing this video - that wasn't the issue before the court. The issue was that for-profit corporations donated money from their general funds to help Citizens United produce the video and the television commercials that would advertise the movie.

Members of those donating corporations could have formed a Political Action Committee consisting solely of the members of that corporation that approved of donating money to Citizens United and that would have been perfectly legal, but that would have relied only on money from those that wished to join, which presumably would have been less money than the corporation as a whole could donate.

In fact, Citizens United didn't even challenge the constitutionality of the laws. Their challenge was that the law shouldn't apply to them, since the television ads they wanted to broadcast were for their movie (which itself was only available for on demand distribution vs a widely broadcast movie), not a political ad. None the less, the ads would have the same effect as a political ad, which is why they were initially prevented from broadcasting them.

The only thing the court preserved was the requirement to list who donated money to Citizens United to produce the movie so, presumably, the shareholders of those donating corporations could consider how their executives were spending the corporation's money when it came to deciding whether they wanted those executives to continue running the corporation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In fact, Citizens United didn't even challenge the constitutionality of the laws. Their challenge was that the law shouldn't apply to them, since the television ads they wanted to broadcast were for their movie (which itself was only available for on demand distribution vs a widely broadcast movie), not a political ad.

If you look at the syllabus of the ruling, you will see that they did:

In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary ) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary; and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission (FEC) summary judgment.

BTW, the ruling that first decided that corporations have free speech was three decades earlier: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. (With a stirring dissent by, of all people, Justice Rehnquist).

 

[BobG]

If you look at the syllabus of the ruling, you will see that they did:

arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary

You cut off your bolding a little short - you didn't bold the "as applied to Hillary" part.

In other words, that statement can't stand alone without knowledge of why they felt the law was unconstitutional when applied to Hillary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did you want your money to be used to generate an interest for you, or did you want it to be used to support your political positions?

The company is using your money to maximize its profit over the long term, and therefore your ROI, if you stick with them. Sometimes this involves killing dolphins; other times it involves supporting certain political groups or agendas. If all you want is to maximize your returns, you should be happy with the company's choices. If you care about things other than money, you should sell your stock in that company, and look elsewhere.

Many people don't have that sort of luxury. Unless one is a stock market expert, one generally buys into mutual funds or the like; often with matching funds from the employer. Most people have no idea what they actually own. What you are saying is that people cannot plan for retirement without having to make political choices. The ability to participate in the free market is limited by one's political orientation?

We are supposed to make political choices through elections, not investment schemes.

Only people without a conscience are allowed to grow wealthy? And those with a social conscience are excluded from the system?

Edit: ACK! spelling correction

 

[Vanadium 50]

In other words, that statement can't stand alone without knowledge of why they felt the law was unconstitutional when applied to Hillary.

You can read it all in their briefs. I wanted to point out that there was more to their argument than just part 2.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Should we have Democratic investements, and Republican investments? That seems to be where this is going. Is that the goal here? Maybe we could just require a D or R designation by each stock symbol?

 

[russ_watters]

Many people don't have that sort of luxury. Unless one is a stock market expert, one generally buys into mutual funds or the like; often with matching funds from the employer. Most people have no idea what they actually own. What you are saying is that people cannot plan for retirement without having to make political choices. The ability to participate in the free market is limited by one's political orientation?

No, it is limited by the passion of their political convictions. People who have very passionate political convictions sometimes go to great lengths to make sure that their choices of what stock to buy or even what clothing store to shop at don't do things that conflict with their political beliefs. People who invest primarily because they want to make money don't.

We are supposed to make political choices through elections, not investment schemes.

People who are passionate about their political beliefs make political choices about a great many things having nothing directly to do with participation in the political process. I'd be shocked if you didn't already make such choices.

Only people without a conscious are allowed to grow wealthy? And those with a social conscious are excluded from the system?

If the choice were truly binary, the answer would be yes, but the choice isn't binary.

Besides: there are other ways to control how corporations do business that don't involve investing in them. You can get laws passed, for example (the subject of the thread!).

In any case, virtually any investment advisor will tell you it is a bad idea to invest with your heart instead of your head. Just googling for that common phrase 'invest with your head, not your heart' turns up plenty of hits:

Problem is, when you start bringing ideology into investing decisions, it's only a matter of time before every company winds up offending someone. You're always better off investing on strict business criteria and simply giving your time and money to groups that support your moral and political views.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1995/07/01/204214/index.htm

Heck, you could even see a sweet irony in profiting from a company you don't like, then using the profit to campaign against them!

Should we have Democratic investements, and Republican investments? That seems to be where this is going. Is that the goal here? Maybe we could just require a D or R designation by each stock symbol?

There are already services who do just that for people who want to invest based on politics instead of economics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Should we have Democratic investements, and Republican investments?

CREF Social Choice.

 

[nismaratwork]

Did you want your money to be used to generate an interest for you, or did you want it to be used to support your political positions?

The company is using your money to maximize its profit over the long term, and therefore your ROI, if you stick with them. Sometimes this involves killing dolphins; other times it involves supporting certain political groups or agendas. If all you want is to maximize your returns, you should be happy with the company's choices. If you care about things other than money, you should sell your stock in that company, and look elsewhere.

...Or, by the same lack of moral logic, you could simply take another suit to SCOTUS, undercut corporate speech, and otherwise sabotage those agendas while enjoying the corporation's largesse. In fact, it's an argument to use extra-national entities to sabotage corporations which interfere with your current investments. I'd say it's a slipperly slope, but your reasoning is more of a plunge off a cliff. Besides, I think you're about as sincere in this as the love Dick Cheney has for his fellow man.

Your assumption that every action taken by a corporation in its own interest is ACTUALLY a valid act in its own interest (dolphins for isntance) is subject to rapid change. Stinks to be the last tuna company to go dolphin free, and be lobbying until the bitter end eh? In addition, I have the choice to move my money around to find the best investment, so if my stock in A is being used to suppress or destroy the chances of B, and I'd invest in B for a greating ROI, then A is taking me for a ride. Only in the simplest and most naive terms can your rhetorical model hold.


@Vanadium 50: That IS, not SHOULD... what do you think SHOULD be?

@Al: Your points only hold if you accept the validity of these bodies as something other than morally bankrupt and otherwise corrupt. Your idealism is admirable, but I believe it's misplaced.