Corporations and Political Speech

[jafs]

Well, first we should deal with the simple case.

Giving money to a politician isn't speech or free expression, right?

Sure it is. Just like donating money to NPR is free expression.

Well, if you believe that, then we have a fundamental disagreement about it.

I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that when the founders created the 1st amendment, they intended for freedom of speech to be conflated with giving money to politicians in order to influence them.

[Pointedstick]

But the second isn't - I'm saying that a fictional concept doesn't have constitutional rights.

Sure, a toaster doesn't have constitutional rights either. What I am saying is that "corporation" is just a convenient shorthand for "a group of people collectively working toward a common goal, with various legal protections." You are saying that those people have no constitutional rights in connection with their common goal as long as they choose the corporate form as their organizing structure.

[Pointedstick]

Well, if you believe that, then we have a fundamental disagreement about it.

I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that when the founders created the 1st amendment, they intended for freedom of speech to be conflated with giving money to politicians in order to influence them.

Maybe not, but I had no idea you were a constitutional originalist! How refreshing. I assume you likewise concur that the first amendment was never intended to cover pornography? And that the due process clause was never intended to become a means to discover a constitutional right to abortion, correct? And I imagine you would similarly agree with the proposition that the second amendment protects personal ownership of modern military weapons for its original purpose of ensuring the citizenry's readiness and fitness for combat in case we are called upon for militia duty?

Or maybe constitutional originalism is simply a convenient justification for one's pre-existing opinion, selectively applied. That's what it was for Scalia, after all.

[jafs]

As long as a corporation is a legally distinct entity, it's not just another name for a bunch of people working together.

[Maddy]

I'm failing to understand the focus on the constitutional rights (or lack thereof) of corporations.  Suppose a corporation makes a distribution to its owners, and those owners turn around and pool their money for the purpose of making a very large donation to a politician of their choice.  Doesn't this accomplish the very same thing as a donation made by the corporation itself?  And what about a powerful group of individuals organized in some manner other than a corporation?

Clearly, it's not the corporate form, per se, that allows money to buy influence. 

[jafs]

Well, if you believe that, then we have a fundamental disagreement about it.

I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that when the founders created the 1st amendment, they intended for freedom of speech to be conflated with giving money to politicians in order to influence them.

Maybe not, but I had no idea you were a constitutional originalist! How refreshing. I assume you likewise concur that the first amendment was never intended to cover pornography? And that the due process clause was never intended to become a means to discover a constitutional right to abortion, right? And I imagine you would similarly agree with the proposition that the second amendment protects personal ownership of modern military weapons for the purpose of readiness and fitness for combat in case the citizenry is called up for militia duty?

I like to go back to basic foundations.

I'd have to do some reading, but you're probably correct about your list.  Certainly the last part is right, from what I've read, with the caveat that the federal government is authorized to arm, train, discipline, etc. the militia, so it's not supposed to be a just a bunch of guys with guns.  And that the militias were intended to prevent the need for a standing army, and now that we have one of those, it changes the picture a bit.

[jafs]

I'm failing to understand the focus on the constitutional rights (or lack thereof) of corporations.  Suppose a corporation makes a distribution to its owners, and those owners turn around and pool their money for the purpose of making a very large donation to a politician of their choice.  Doesn't this accomplish the very same thing as a donation made by the corporation itself?  And what about a powerful group of individuals organized in some manner other than a corporation?

Clearly, it's not the corporate form, per se, that allows money to buy influence.

Well, it's been used to justify all sorts of stuff that corporations do that many of us find objectionable.

But, yes, obviously, disallowing corporations constitutional rights in itself wouldn't be enough to solve the money/influence problem.  That's why I'd disallow all contributions to politicians, regardless of where they come from, in addition to the first idea.

[Pointedstick]

That's why I'd disallow all contributions to politicians, regardless of where they come from, in addition to the first idea.

So all political candidates would have to be rich people like Donald Trump capable of self-funding their own campaigns! Perfect!

[Pointedstick]

As long as a corporation is a legally distinct entity, it's not just another name for a bunch of people working together.

Why not?

[Greg]

That's why I'd disallow all contributions to politicians, regardless of where they come from, in addition to the first idea.

Might be slightly better for term limit jobs but for senators or house of representatives, etc. without term limits, without being able to contribute to politicians, you're giving an unfair advantage to the incumbent politician.

[jafs]

That's why I'd disallow all contributions to politicians, regardless of where they come from, in addition to the first idea.

So all political candidates would have to be rich people like Donald Trump capable of self-funding their own campaigns! Perfect!

Again, I'd limit personal spending as well.

Don't you guys read my posts?

[jafs]

As long as a corporation is a legally distinct entity, it's not just another name for a bunch of people working together.

Why not?

Because it is, by legal definition, an entity that is separate and distinct from those people - that's the whole point of incorporation.

Once it's been defined as legally separate and distinct, it doesn't make any sense at all to claim that it's identical to the people involved.

[Pointedstick]

Because it is, by legal definition, an entity that is separate and distinct from those people - that's the whole point of incorporation.

Once it's been defined as legally separate and distinct, it doesn't make any sense at all to claim that it's identical to the people involved.

My family is a legal entity that allows me to pay substantially less in taxes than if I was alone. It is distinct from me, but I am a part of it. Is my family just a shorthand for "me, my wife, and my children" or is it a separate thing that should be treated differently?

[jafs]

Your family is not a separate legal entity in the way that a corporation is.  It's just a name for the group of people involved.

Because you're married with kids, you're able to take advantage of the legal privileges that status offers, that's all.

[Pointedstick]

It's interesting to me that you want to forget about the people involved. Seems pretty illiberal to me.

Let me see if I have this right: when a group of people get together for some common collective purpose, they should retain their constitutional rights as it pertains to that purpose only as long as they do not organize their efforts by putting them under the umbrella of a legal entity that is itself distinct from them. When they so organize, then their constitutional rights that pertain to their common goal while they are acting under the auspices of their distinct entity are subject to political curtailment if necessary.

Right?

[jafs]

It's interesting to me that you want to forget about the people involved. Seems pretty illiberal to me.

Let me see if I have this right: when a group of people get together for some common collective purpose, they should retain their constitutional rights as it pertains to that purpose only as long as they do not organize their efforts by putting them under the umbrella of a legal entity that is itself distinct from them. When they so organize, then their constitutional rights that pertain to their common goal while they are acting under the auspices of their distinct entity are subject to political curtailment if necessary.

Right?

I don't think I can keep repeating myself indefinitely - it gets tired.

Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period.  All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.

Look, if you want to create a separate legal entity, that's fine.  But doing that, by definition, makes that entity different and distinct from the people involved.

[Pointedstick]

I don't think I can keep repeating myself indefinitely - it gets tired.

Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period.  All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.

Look, if you want to create a separate legal entity, that's fine.  But doing that, by definition, makes that entity different and distinct from the people involved.

It's clear that somehow I am not getting through. Let me try an example.

If I want to hand out fliers on the street corner, the government should not have the power to prohibit me from doing this.

If I form Street Corner Fliers LLC, become its sole employee, and hand out fliers as an agent of Street Corner Fliers LLC, that is something the government should be able to prohibit me Street Corner Fliers LLC from doing.

Is that correct?

[Maddy]

They shouldn't do that.

Are you prepared to say that this kind of activity is every bit as pernicious and undermining of the democratic process as is the use of money to buy political favors?  If so, why do you think the participants in this kind of activity are given a free pass by the vast majority of progressives?

[Xan]

It's interesting to me that you want to forget about the people involved. Seems pretty illiberal to me.

Let me see if I have this right: when a group of people get together for some common collective purpose, they should retain their constitutional rights as it pertains to that purpose only as long as they do not organize their efforts by putting them under the umbrella of a legal entity that is itself distinct from them. When they so organize, then their constitutional rights that pertain to their common goal while they are acting under the auspices of their distinct entity are subject to political curtailment if necessary.

Right?

I don't think I can keep repeating myself indefinitely - it gets tired.

Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period.  All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.

Look, if you want to create a separate legal entity, that's fine.  But doing that, by definition, makes that entity different and distinct from the people involved.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions disagree with you: Hobby Lobby and Citizens United.  And in the other thread you're arguing that the debate is moot once the SC decides.

[Libertarian666]

They shouldn't do that.

Are you prepared to say that this kind of activity is every bit as pernicious and undermining of the democratic process as is the use of money to buy political favors?  If so, why do you think the participants in this kind of activity are given a free pass by the vast majority of progressives?

The answer is obvious. Their standard is "whose ox is gored".

[Pointedstick]

No no, the debate is only moot with a supreme court decision if you agree with it, Xan. C'mon, man. If you disagree with the decision, then you're showing principle and the Supreme Court got it wrong.

[jafs]

I don't think I can keep repeating myself indefinitely - it gets tired.

Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period.  All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.

Look, if you want to create a separate legal entity, that's fine.  But doing that, by definition, makes that entity different and distinct from the people involved.

It's clear that somehow I am not getting through. Let me try an example.

If I want to hand out fliers on the street corner, the government should not have the power to prohibit me from doing this.

If I form Street Corner Fliers LLC, become its sole employee, and hand out fliers as an agent of Street Corner Fliers LLC, that is something the government should be able to prohibit me Street Corner Fliers LLC from doing.

Is that correct?

Yes - the corporation has no constitutional rights.

You are pointing at an interesting point about corporations - as incorporate fictitious entities, they can't actually do anything.  Only people can do things.

As an individual, you would still be free to exercise all of your rights, of course.

[jafs]

They shouldn't do that.

Are you prepared to say that this kind of activity is every bit as pernicious and undermining of the democratic process as is the use of money to buy political favors?  If so, why do you think the participants in this kind of activity are given a free pass by the vast majority of progressives?

I don't know.

The use of money to influence politics seems a lot more widespread and embedded to me, so I think it's probably worse in a practical sense.  But theoretically, yes, as democracy is predicated on the ability of people to gather together and engage in political activity.

I can't possibly answer anything about the "vast majority of progressives", of course, and doubt that there's a monolithic view of this among that group.

[Pointedstick]

Yes - the corporation has no constitutional rights.

You are pointing at an interesting point about corporations - as incorporate fictitious entities, they can't actually do anything.  Only people can do things.

As an individual, you would still be free to exercise all of your rights, of course.

So in my example, I am only free to exercise my first amendment right as an individual when I am operating as an individual, but not when I am operating as an agent for Street Corner Fliers LLC, even though, as a person, I am doing literally the exact same thing in both cases, right?

[jafs]

It's interesting to me that you want to forget about the people involved. Seems pretty illiberal to me.

Let me see if I have this right: when a group of people get together for some common collective purpose, they should retain their constitutional rights as it pertains to that purpose only as long as they do not organize their efforts by putting them under the umbrella of a legal entity that is itself distinct from them. When they so organize, then their constitutional rights that pertain to their common goal while they are acting under the auspices of their distinct entity are subject to political curtailment if necessary.

Right?

I don't think I can keep repeating myself indefinitely - it gets tired.

Corporations don't have constitutional rights, period.  All of the people involved have them, and are free to exercise them.

Look, if you want to create a separate legal entity, that's fine.  But doing that, by definition, makes that entity different and distinct from the people involved.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions disagree with you: Hobby Lobby and Citizens United.  And in the other thread you're arguing that the debate is moot once the SC decides.

You're right - there have been any number of SC decisions that have led to this point, and corporations have been established as having constitutional rights by them.

So, in a practical/legal sense, I'm just wrong and flat out of luck.

But, I can still disagree with those decisions, and that's what I'm doing.

Just as you can disagree that gay/lesbian folks should be able to marry, but you're out of luck trying to stop them from doing that at this point.

Also, interestingly, the HL decision wasn't based on the 1st amendment.