Corporations and Political Speech

[jafs]

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?

Well, I wouldn't say it that way, of course.

Your individual constitutional rights are always available.

It's the corporation that has none of those.  The point you're making, which is a good one, is that only actual people can do things.  I make that point in the other direction, arguing against the rights of incorporeal legal entities.

And, of course, most corporations exist in a much more complex fashion than the one you're mentioning.  So, Target, for example, has lots of shareholders, employees, customers, etc.  All of them have the right to believe various religious beliefs and probably do, but it makes no sense to speak of a "Target religion".

[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?

Well, I wouldn't say it that way, of course.

Your individual constitutional rights are always available.

They are available if I choose to distribute the fliers as an individual with no special legal status rather than as an individual who is acting as an agent of a fictitious legally-existent corporation, right?

[jafs]

What kind of fliers are we discussing?

If they're fliers promoting the corporate business, then they might be an acceptable "business practice". 

[Pointedstick]

What kind of fliers are we discussing?

If they're fliers promoting the corporate business, then they might be an acceptable "business practice".

Let's say political fliers advocating for a particular candidate.

[jafs]

Nope - different situation there.  We might decide that it's something we want to allow corporations to do, but if we did, it wouldn't be based on any supposed constitutional rights they have.

I did a quick google search, and it looks like it may be impossible for a single owned business to incorporate, so your example isn't really possible.

And, that's one of the main points, that a corporation exists in a way that involves many people of many different views/beliefs.  Even a "closely held" corporation only has to have a majority shareholder stake, like 51%, which leaves a large minority of shareholders who may not share the beliefs of the majority shareholders.

[jafs]

It's kind of a fun example, though.

If we let individuals incorporate, I could form a "Me corporation", and then put all of our assets into that.  So, if anybody ever sued me, they couldn't get a dime 

[Maddy]

Yup, there are plenty of corporations composed of a single shareholder, just as there are a great many single-member LLCs. 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is the capacity in which an individual is acting that determines the scope of his constitutional rights, how on earth are we to determine whether an individual is, in a particular instance, acting in his personal capacity or as an agent of the corporation?

[Pointedstick]

The point that I'm making is that there isn't as much of a distinction as you want to draw--individual behavior within and without a corporate umbrella can be identical, but you want the government to be able to regulate or prohibit one of them.

The reason why I'm pressing you so heavily on this is because the right of people within corporations to spend money on speech is exactly what the Citizens United case was all about. Conservative advocacy organization Citizens United filed a lawsuit alleging that Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because it was totally slanted against Bush and clear advocacy that aired with 30 days of an election. They lost on the grounds that Moore's organization was essentially a part of the media and therefore exempt from restrictions because they had made a bunch of documentary films.

Citizens United then went on to make documentary movies themselves, aiming to get themselves classified as a media organization too. in 2007, they made a heavily-slanted documentary about Hillary Clinton (not unlike the films that Michael Moore makes), which was censored under BCRA on the grounds that they were not a real media organization because their movie was clear advocacy and not media-related.

This exposes the problem with the kind of regime you favor: it allows bureaucrats to determine who can say what based on classifications that are vague and arbitrary. The FEC said that Michael Moore's corporation was a media firm but Citizens United was not. Both are corporations and both are run by people with agendas more or less explicitly for the purpose of convincing voters. Yet the liberal one was given permission to operate freely, while the conservative one was censored.

Making a movie is an extremely collective affair that is virtually always always done under a corporate umbrella, whether for-profit or non-profit. My broke-ass college friend in debt up to his eyeballs makes movies within a corporate shell. By its nature, the overwhelming majority of movie-making is censorable at will under a regime that declares corporate speech to be unprotected by the first amendment. And not just movies: newspapers too. Ever heard of a one-man newspaper shop? The New York Times has no first amendment right to print what it wishes under such a regime.

Do you see the problem here?

[Xan]

All of them have the right to believe various religious beliefs and probably do, but it makes no sense to speak of a "Target religion".

The Hobby Lobby case was pretty much exactly about this.  A closely-held company that has had religion as its mainstay from the beginning can indeed have a religion.

[Pointedstick]

There is a small family-owned shop in my town called "Enchantment Christian Gifts." They sell Christian-themed merchandise and the family owners are all Christians (imagine that ). Under your proposed "corporations have no rights" regime, it seems that this business could lawfully be prohibited from selling Christian merchandise without that violating the religious freedom of its owners. After all, it would be the fictitious, non-existent corporation that would be being prohibited from expressing religious ideas, not the people, right?

Right?

[Maddy]

Conservative advocacy organization Citizens United filed a lawsuit alleging that Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because it was totally slanted against Bush and clear advocacy that aired with 30 days of an election. They lost on the grounds that Moore's organization was essentially a part of the media and therefore exempt from restrictions because they had made a bunch of documentary films.

Citizens United then went on to make documentary movies themselves, aiming to get themselves classified as a media organization too. in 2007, they made a heavily-slanted documentary about Hillary Clinton (not unlike the films that Michael Moore makes), which was censored under BCRA on the grounds that they were not a real media organization because their movie was clear advocacy and not media-related.

This exposes the problem with the kind of regime you favor: it allows bureaucrats to determine who can say what based on classifications that are vague and arbitrary. The FEC said that Michael Moore's corporation was a media firm but Citizens United was not. Both are corporations and both are run by people with agendas more or less explicitly for the purpose of convincing voters. Yet the liberal one was given permission to operate freely, while the conservative one was censored.

I'm glad you pointed out the events that led up to Citizens United's making of the film.  It points out the hypocrisy of the dominant progressive view that wants the conservative money out of politics only so long as it's conservative money we're talking about.

[Pointedstick]

I'm glad you pointed out the events that led up to Citizens United's making of the film.  It points out the hypocrisy of the dominant progressive view that wants the conservative money out of politics only so long as it's conservative money we're talking about.

It was always doomed to be arbitrary and politically-controlled. The members of the New York Times' editorial board use the for-profit corporate structure and reputation of the New York Times to publish editorials explicitly advocating for and even outright endorsing political candidates. Yet this activity was never censored, despite the fact that it more or less matches what Citizens United was doing, albeit in print form rather than movie form. The New York Times of course has a long and storied history as a politically-active media organization, but how would a new politically-active media organization organization gain that kind of long and storied history if it was restricted from expressing the political viewpoints of its owners in the first place?

This is why the kind of regime you favor is unworkable, jafs. It's easy to say, "get money out of politics!" the the devil is in the details. Money enables speech, and people speak using corporations, and entities that we want to be able to speak are all organized as corporations anyway. This thread could probably go on for as long as the religion thread hashing out the details.

And anyway, the Supreme Court threw your view out twice (Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, so we can stop discussing it and consider the matter closed, right?

[jafs]

The point that I'm making is that there isn't as much of a distinction as you want to draw--individual behavior within and without a corporate umbrella can be identical, but you want the government to be able to regulate or prohibit one of them.

The reason why I'm pressing you so heavily on this is because the right of people within corporations to spend money on speech is exactly what the Citizens United case was all about. Conservative advocacy organization Citizens United filed a lawsuit alleging that Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because it was totally slanted against Bush and clear advocacy that aired with 30 days of an election. They lost on the grounds that Moore's organization was essentially a part of the media and therefore exempt from restrictions because they had made a bunch of documentary films.

Citizens United then went on to make documentary movies themselves, aiming to get themselves classified as a media organization too. in 2007, they made a heavily-slanted documentary about Hillary Clinton (not unlike the films that Michael Moore makes), which was censored under BCRA on the grounds that they were not a real media organization because their movie was clear advocacy and not media-related.

This exposes the problem with the kind of regime you favor: it allows bureaucrats to determine who can say what based on classifications that are vague and arbitrary. The FEC said that Michael Moore's corporation was a media firm but Citizens United was not. Both are corporations and both are run by people with agendas more or less explicitly for the purpose of convincing voters. Yet the liberal one was given permission to operate freely, while the conservative one was censored.

Making a movie is an extremely collective affair that is virtually always always done under a corporate umbrella, whether for-profit or non-profit. My broke-ass college friend in debt up to his eyeballs makes movies within a corporate shell. By its nature, the overwhelming majority of movie-making is censorable at will under a regime that declares corporate speech to be unprotected by the first amendment. And not just movies: newspapers too. Ever heard of a one-man newspaper shop? The New York Times has no first amendment right to print what it wishes under such a regime.

Do you see the problem here?

That's a problem that's been created by corporate structures.

Maybe we should just eliminate them entirely.

[Pointedstick]

That's a problem that's been created by corporate structures.

Maybe we should just eliminate them entirely.

Right, and while we're at it, let's also lower taxes to zero, and provide free healthcare and college education.

So given that we still have corporations and will for the foreseeable future, do you see the problems integrating your proposed regulatory regime with the world we all live in?

[jafs]

All of them have the right to believe various religious beliefs and probably do, but it makes no sense to speak of a "Target religion".

The Hobby Lobby case was pretty much exactly about this.  A closely-held company that has had religion as its mainstay from the beginning can indeed have a religion.

Yes, you're right.

I just find the decision absurd, as I find the Kelo decision.

[jafs]

That's a problem that's been created by corporate structures.

Maybe we should just eliminate them entirely.

Right, and while we're at it, let's also lower taxes to zero, and provide free healthcare and college education.

So given that we still have corporations and will for the foreseeable future, do you see the problems integrating your proposed regulatory regime with the world we all live in?

None of what I propose is even faintly likely to ever happen.

We're so far down the road of granting rights to corporations that don't belong to them (in my view) that it's unlikely to ever be reversed in any significant way.  Just as we're very far down to the road of granting the police the right to any number of warrantless searches that I find incorrect.

This whole conversation is just either an intellectual exercise (entertaining), or a complete waste of time.

But, it's worth noting that the creation of a fictitious legal entity creates an absurd situation, which colors all of the discussion about those entities.

[jafs]

The sad truth is that we've essentially become a "corporatocracy" and that's not likely to change.

I think people feel that on some level and are bothered by it, which explains the popularity of both Trump and Sanders.  But, given the depth of the problem, I seriously doubt that a president, any president, will be able to improve things much.

So, all we can do is live in the reality and dream of a better way.

[Pointedstick]

I don't really see the point, myself. Excessive unrealistic utopianism is what made me fall out with anarcho-capitalism. Not much point in theorizing about a world that you have no personal power to bring about and that will never be created by others, either--at least not in your lifetime.

Besides, the corporation is, like, one of the bedrock foundations of western civilization. Romans had corporations; that's where the word comes from, in fact. Corporations were responsible for the rise of commercial seafaring during the Age of Sail. Corporations are required for modern highly-organized production processes and for survival in a world of government legal, regulatory, and taxation systems. It's a shame that you see such an inherent contradiction between rights and corporations that you'd be willing to throw one of them out entirely. An obvious alternative is to grant corporations constitutional rights, which we have in fact done and so far the world hasn't exploded. It's not like the problem of "money in politics" emerged after the Citizens United decision. In fact since then there's been one rebuke after another the power of big money to influence elections.

The "money in politics" problem really isn't about money in elections, it's about access to power. It's about the ability of a wealthy, powerful, elite person to influence sitting politicians and tilt their views towards seeing eye to eye more with the minority of elites than with the majority of ordinary people. The political tension between commoners and elites goes back thousands of years, and in a lot of ways, it's the foundational social conflict that government gives rise to. The history of western civilization is replete with examples of this conflict taking a hundred different forms.

I'm all for reforming our institutions to rebalance things in this arena, but so long as there is government--so long as there is power itself--it will never be a solved problem. And I'm not interested in throwing our other cherished institutions in the process. Give me corporations and constitutional rights any day.

[Mark Leavy]

That's a problem that's been created by corporate structures.

Maybe we should just eliminate them entirely.

This is so naive that I wonder if you should be allowed outside with a pocket knife.

I create corporate structures several times a year.  How do you do business without it?  Anytime you join a venture with more than one person you would be an idiot to not setup a structure.  Anytime you buy property as an individual - you should setup a corporate structure. A hardware store that you want to continue on past your death should be a corporation. I can't imagine hiring anyone without a corporation.
 
You seem to have a very limited view as to the value that incorporation adds to society and how it increases freedom, trade, investment and general prosperity for all.

[Mark Leavy]

I create corporate structures several times a year.  How do you do business without it?  Anytime you join a venture with more than one person you would be an idiot to not setup a structure.

I'm likely quite naive about this... What are the situations where someone ought to be setting up a corporate structure?  What are the advantages (and disadvantages)?

Think of a corporation as just the set of rules that everyone agrees to abide by when you pool your money.

Who owns what?  Who gets to vote?  If the shit goes down, who is in trouble?  If you hire someone, who gets sued when they slip and fall.  If the mailman falls while delivering a letter, do they get to take everything you own, or just your house?  If you have a farm that makes money some years and loses money other years and you have a loan and a couple of relatives that helped out - how much do you pay out every year to the folks that bought the seed corn?  Anything at all that involves multiple people or unknown risks should be a corporation.

[Tyler]

I think people feel that on some level and are bothered by it, which explains the popularity of both Trump and Sanders.  But, given the depth of the problem, I seriously doubt that a president, any president, will be able to improve things much.

Nor would they truly want to.  Take Bernie Sanders, for example.  I'll believe he's truly for getting organized money out of politics when he also rebukes the the unions bankrolling him.  It's almost as if he's not really against individuals organizing to express free political speech, but he's simply wants to silence organizations he disagrees with.  Surely his principles run deeper than that. 

[jafs]

I don't really see the point, myself. Excessive unrealistic utopianism is what made me fall out with anarcho-capitalism. Not much point in theorizing about a world that you have no personal power to bring about and that will never be created by others, either--at least not in your lifetime.

Besides, the corporation is, like, one of the bedrock foundations of western civilization. Romans had corporations; that's where the word comes from, in fact. Corporations were responsible for the rise of commercial seafaring during the Age of Sail. Corporations are required for modern highly-organized production processes and for survival in a world of government legal, regulatory, and taxation systems. It's a shame that you see such an inherent contradiction between rights and corporations that you'd be willing to throw one of them out entirely. An obvious alternative is to grant corporations constitutional rights, which we have in fact done and so far the world hasn't exploded. It's not like the problem of "money in politics" emerged after the Citizens United decision. In fact since then there's been one rebuke after another the power of big money to influence elections.

The "money in politics" problem really isn't about money in elections, it's about access to power. It's about the ability of a wealthy, powerful, elite person to influence sitting politicians and tilt their views towards seeing eye to eye more with the minority of elites than with the majority of ordinary people. The political tension between commoners and elites goes back thousands of years, and in a lot of ways, it's the foundational social conflict that government gives rise to. The history of western civilization is replete with examples of this conflict taking a hundred different forms.

I'm all for reforming our institutions to rebalance things in this arena, but so long as there is government--so long as there is power itself--it will never be a solved problem. And I'm not interested in throwing our other cherished institutions in the process. Give me corporations and constitutional rights any day.

That's fine - for you it's a waste of time.  I'll stop wasting your time.  I agree that it would be unhealthy to spend a lot of emotional energy on things we can't control, but sometimes it's useful to "think outside the box" as well.

The problem is a basic one, which if not addressed successfully, will continue to erode our system.  And, once you grant corporations constitutional rights, and conflate money and speech, I don't see any way to fix things.

What's your suggestion?

[jafs]

That's a problem that's been created by corporate structures.

Maybe we should just eliminate them entirely.

This is so naive that I wonder if you should be allowed outside with a pocket knife.

I create corporate structures several times a year.  How do you do business without it?  Anytime you join a venture with more than one person you would be an idiot to not setup a structure.  Anytime you buy property as an individual - you should setup a corporate structure. A hardware store that you want to continue on past your death should be a corporation. I can't imagine hiring anyone without a corporation.
 
You seem to have a very limited view as to the value that incorporation adds to society and how it increases freedom, trade, investment and general prosperity for all.

A corporation isn't the only way to structure a business, right?

There are sole proprietorships and partnerships as well.

[Mountaineer]

I don't really see the point, myself. Excessive unrealistic utopianism is what made me fall out with anarcho-capitalism. Not much point in theorizing about a world that you have no personal power to bring about and that will never be created by others, either--at least not in your lifetime.

Besides, the corporation is, like, one of the bedrock foundations of western civilization. Romans had corporations; that's where the word comes from, in fact. Corporations were responsible for the rise of commercial seafaring during the Age of Sail. Corporations are required for modern highly-organized production processes and for survival in a world of government legal, regulatory, and taxation systems. It's a shame that you see such an inherent contradiction between rights and corporations that you'd be willing to throw one of them out entirely. An obvious alternative is to grant corporations constitutional rights, which we have in fact done and so far the world hasn't exploded. It's not like the problem of "money in politics" emerged after the Citizens United decision. In fact since then there's been one rebuke after another the power of big money to influence elections.

The "money in politics" problem really isn't about money in elections, it's about access to power. It's about the ability of a wealthy, powerful, elite person to influence sitting politicians and tilt their views towards seeing eye to eye more with the minority of elites than with the majority of ordinary people. The political tension between commoners and elites goes back thousands of years, and in a lot of ways, it's the foundational social conflict that government gives rise to. The history of western civilization is replete with examples of this conflict taking a hundred different forms.

I'm all for reforming our institutions to rebalance things in this arena, but so long as there is government--so long as there is power itself--it will never be a solved problem. And I'm not interested in throwing our other cherished institutions in the process. Give me corporations and constitutional rights any day.

That's fine - for you it's a waste of time.  I'll stop wasting your time.  I agree that it would be unhealthy to spend a lot of emotional energy on things we can't control, but sometimes it's useful to "think outside the box" as well.

The problem is a basic one, which if not addressed successfully, will continue to erode our system.  And, once you grant corporations constitutional rights, and conflate money and speech, I don't see any way to fix things.

What's your suggestion?

jafs,

I find it fascinating that you think corporations are eroding our system and yet you turn a blind eye (or even an eye of approval?) to other practices that are eroding our system in a more fundamental way such as:  cohabitation, abortion, sodomy, divorce, euthanasia, idol worship, materialism, and narcissism to name a few.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

jafs,

I find it fascinating that you think corporations are eroding our system and yet you turn a blind eye (or even an eye of approval?) to other practices that are eroding our system in a more fundamental way such as:  cohabitation, abortion, sodomy, divorce, euthanasia, idol worship, materialism, and narcissism to name a few.

... Mountaineer

IMHO, cohabitation and euthanasia are good things, and divorce is better than being stuck in a horrible marriage. Regardless, how do you know he turns a blind eye to these things, and even if he did, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

You will have to ask jafs if he turns a blind eye to those things; perhaps I've misread his posts.

What does it have to do with the topic at hand?
Corporations - in the thread title.
The other things i mentioned - largely being ignored by political speech (also in the thread title) and somewhat actively trying to be silenced by the left.
Connections my man, connections. 

... Mountaineer