This is why we need a constitutional amendment stating for once and for all that a corporation is *not* a person, and does *not* enjoy any rights guaranteed to persons.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa dear, I'm very lazy and don't want to read that... Could you sum up?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Wow. I'm agreeing wholeheartedly with Lisa.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm assuming Lisa's argument is that corporations shouldn't be allowed free speech because it somehow means foreign people would be engaging in free speech in the US? How is this a libertarian position in the least?
Corporations are groups of people voluntarily organizing themselves according to certain bylaws. What makes it so those people should be denied certain sorts of speech just because one of those bylaws is that shares shall be sold, and the governing of the group shall be done in accordance with the votes of those shares as restricted by certain rules?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i thought the problem with corporations as persons was that you can prosecute the higher ups and stuff.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The link is to the Supreme Court business today.
At present it is illegal for Unions or Corporations to sponsor any advertisements for or against politicians 30 days before an election.
The arguments for this are two fold.
1) That large corporations or unions could buy an election by flooding the airwaves with political advertisements that no person could afford to match.
In other words, that Microsoft or Ford have deeper pockets than you or I, so this keeps the playing field even.
2) That corporations or unions are creating advertisements using the money of their members and stock holders. If we equate Money with Voice, they are then speaking using the voices of people who may not agree with what is being said.
a new argument has been raised.
3) Foreign powers could create corporations to legally fund politicians they wanted to back. Al-Queda could buy attack ads on politicians that were hard on terror, and buy pro-ads for politicians who will help them destroy the US. While the Congress could limit the power of foreign individuals to participate in the US elections, the Supreme Court could decide that since Corporations are equal to Humans in the eyes of the court, then we can't stop them. In fact, we may not even be allowed to demand they tell us who makes any given advertisement.
Apparently freedom of speech includes freedom of speaking without letting anyone know who you are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What makes it so those people should be denied certain sorts of speech just because one of those bylaws is that shares shall be sold, and the governing of the group shall be done in accordance with the votes of those shares as restricted by certain rules?
In practical terms? Because it's easy enough to buy politicians as it is, without making it legal for corporations to do so more easily. As for free speech concerns, well, my answer to that question would be that those individuals who group together are still permitted, individually and separately or together as a different kind of group to make their political 'speech'.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm assuming Lisa's argument is that corporations shouldn't be allowed free speech because it somehow means foreign people would be engaging in free speech in the US? How is this a libertarian position in the least?
You don't seriously think that's the reason I think corporations should be seen as legal persons.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Corporations are groups of people voluntarily organizing themselves according to certain bylaws. What makes it so those people should be denied certain sorts of speech just because one of those bylaws is that shares shall be sold, and the governing of the group shall be done in accordance with the votes of those shares as restricted by certain rules?
That's ridiculous. Every individual in the organization has free speech. The idea that the corporation itself has free speech is bizarre.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is very strange to hear a libertarian argue that a group has an existence separate from that of its members. Are you now going to agree there is a nebulous society that is also capable of taking actions as itself, including enforcing rules on individuals in it?
In other words, what about a corporation spending money isn't a group of individuals mutually allocating resources according to a set of rules they mutually agreed upon? And if there is no difference, then why do you want to stop the free speech of such groups of individuals?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Fugu, the individuals who own stock in a corporation, or the members of a Union, may not agree to the message that the board decides to be sent. In other words, while Joe believes in strict governmental over-site of corporate boards, the corporate board does not, and uses the corporation's money to purchase ads attacking any such over-site. Joe is a stock holder, through a mutual fund that he owns. Its his money being used to buy the ad--and since they equate money with voice, its his voice being used to argue against him.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It is very strange to hear a libertarian argue that a group has an existence separate from that of its members. Are you now going to agree there is a nebulous society that is also capable of taking actions as itself, including enforcing rules on individuals in it?
No. The problem is that the government grants recognition to these groups which is separate from the recognition given to its members. It shouldn't do that. Once it does, we have to deal with that fact (even while we're trying to change the fact).
Quit the rhetorical silliness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Fugu, the individuals who own stock in a corporation, or the members of a Union, may not agree to the message that the board decides to be sent. In other words, while Joe believes in strict governmental over-site of corporate boards, the corporate board does not, and uses the corporation's money to purchase ads attacking any such over-site. Joe is a stock holder, through a mutual fund that he owns. Its his money being used to buy the ad--and since they equate money with voice, its his voice being used to argue against him.
And if Joe is really so stupid that he never considered the possibility of this happening when he bought the stock, then sheesh, government protection from himself is the last thing we want to give him. Let him take responsibility for his own actions. That includes giving money to other people so they can figure out the best way of making it grow. He may also, if he can acquire the necessary materials in a series of voluntary transactions, eat cake. He may not, however, both have it and eat it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't rhetorical silliness. While there are frameworks given to corporation, they are fundamentally mutual agreements between groups of individuals. Denying corporations free speech rights is denying free speech to those persons individually, as they have voluntarily agreed to act together. There is no coercion involved, and since there is no coercion involved, it is not in the least libertarian to oppose their collective free speech rights.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm actually with Lisa on this one... Though I tend to be more concerned with the ability of corporations to get into shenanigans, cease to exist, and then mysteriously reappear as a an entirely new "person" with most of the same people.
Still, participating in a corporation shouldn't be taken to be equivalent to plugging into some kind of hive-mind.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
How is Joe stupid in believing that money he invested as part of a mutual fund would be used for improving production or services, not for political ads that he doesn't agree with? How can he be responsible for the actions of the money he invests when, along with the right to $-speech, is the right to $-speech anonymously, so that Joe won't even know when those companies he's invested in create such political $-speech.
NOTE; By $-speech I am referring to the idea that putting money into a political campaign is the same as speech. Its not that Toyota would say, "Vote for McCain" its that they secretly invest more money as a corporation than any individual could afford to. Hence they get to yell louder than the rest of us.
And its Joe's money they secretly use to yell loud. You say Joe should expect that as part of the cost of his investments? Are you saying that once a person joins a corporation they are automatically limiting their own free speech rights by the $ value of that investment?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How is Joe stupid in believing that money he invested as part of a mutual fund would be used for improving production or services, not for political ads that he doesn't agree with?
A person invests in a corporation with the expectation that the corporation will act in his interest as a sharedholder. That is, they will protect and increase the share price. That may involve decisions on distribution methods and manufacturing methods as well as political activity. Joe should have proportionate influence over the political activities just as he has proportionate control over manufacturing methods.
If I disagree with using foreign components in the corporation's products I complain to the shareholder rep, vote out officers that support imports, or sell my shares. I don't try to get a law passed making it illegal for US companies to import foreign components.
That said, I might agree with limitations on corporate free speech because corporations have the organization and resources necessary to exert disproportionate political influence. I just don't agree with the whole "using investor money to fund stuff they don't agree with should be illegal" argument.
[ September 11, 2009, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm not sure what the "official" libertarian position is on this -- or even whether there is an "official" libertarian position -- but I'm glad to hear Lisa saying this. One of my biggest problems with the ideology of libertarianism is that a truly hands-off government with no oversight or control over corporations leads to gross abuses of power. Granted, some of those gross abuses of power are created by law (such as the laws which allow corporations to be treated as people), but natural law also seems to create troubling situations, as we've seen throughout history.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How is Joe stupid in believing that money he invested as part of a mutual fund would be used for improving production or services, not for political ads that he doesn't agree with?
Corporate boards don't take out political ads or support candidates out of plain meanness, you know. They do so because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that one candidate will increase their profits, or lower their taxes, relative to the other. Now, it's bad that we have a political culture where supporting particular campaigns can be a good investment for a company. It would be much better if buying machinery or hiring people was always the better investment. But in the actual world we've got, corporations do, presumably, increase their profits by being effective lobbyists. Joe is, of course, welcome to believe that Measure X, although good for his wealth as seen in his mutual-fund holdings, would be bad for society/the environment/disadvantaged owners of furless lapdogs. If so, he should put his money where his mouth is, not in mutual funds that will profit from Measure X.