One fundamental difference between corporations and unions on one side and other kinds of groups created to influence public opinion is that corporations and unions have one single over-riding interest--profit and their own very limited economic well-being. While individuals are moral actors with a mixture of many motivations, corporations want only to increase revenues and limit costs. For a corporation, investments in political speech are just another kind of investment. Something similar can be said about unions.
Allowing public opinion to be bought and sold like any other commodity is inherently corrupting to our politics. The ideology on which modern democracy is based has at its roots the idea that individuals can look past their own individual self-interest when exercising their political rights--like voting and speaking on public issues. Corporations not only can't do this--they shouldn't. Neither can unions.
I suspect the net effect of this will be a growth in cynicism about all these institutions and a growing distrust of politics.
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
I am always tickled when people who are repulsed by the idea of applying the Constitution to terrorists or illegal combatants or illegal aliens or illegal immegrants or migrant workers (whatever the term de jour is) loudly and proudly proclaim that it should apply to corporations.
:lol:
I think that's because corporations A: respect the laws of the country B: don't attempt to kill civilians. Of course, to my knowledge. Once Apple starts bombing crowded subways, and Microsoft starts ignoring the laws of this country as a matter of course; please tell me.
I do believe that a corporation has the same rights as a person. But I'm perplexed by the fact (in the eyes of some people) that a corporation has more of a right (claim) to personhood than a human pre-birth child does.
What a load of crap.
Everyone has self-interest. Deciding that some shouldn't be able to speak just because they want to make a profit is crazy. I want to make a profit too, by the way.
You can't just decide that some speech is corrupt or evil and restrict it on those grounds.
So you think life begins at incorporation, huh? :mrgreen:
There are many groups which are not corporations which run ads, campaigns, etc. It's hardly just a "side effect" of the formation of corporations.
Yes, exactly. Here are a few examples:
political parties
charities and other non-profits
schools and universities
think tanks
media outlets
By their logic, none would have free speech rights. Absurd.
I think that's because corporations A: respect the laws of the country B: don't attempt to kill civilians.
That doesn't answer the question, though. They are a corporation.
Does the First Amendment protect them or not?
yeah you can.
its done with no problems all over the world (including here)
why can't i donate as much money as i want to any candidate in America?
You're saying that:
Newspapers should have freedom of the press applied to them, even when they are corporations. Since some are corporations, the principle must be applied to all corporations.
I am responding:
Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be corporations. If we decide that newspapers cannot be, then it pokes a hole in your notion that corporations ought to be free to speak under the first amendment simply because some newspapers are corporations.
The framework of our democracy is breaking down. 'Radical' notions like rethinking corporatism in favor of a real free market economy will probably be ignored because of complacency. It is simply not painful enough, yet.
A symptom of the growing framework for tyranny is this notion of granting corporations the rights of individuals because they are composed of individuals. Applying the notion of freedom of speech to corporations is analogous to saying that because corporations represent the interests of their owners, they should be allowed to vote. Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.
I'm not suggesting the speech itself is evil or corrupt. I'm saying the basis on which corporations (or unions) speak is fundamentally different than when individuals do it because the nature of their interests are fundamentally different. They have ONLY narrow, economic self-interest to look after. All other considerations are inappropriate. Individuals must balance their own self-interest against the wider interests of society. Corporations deliberately don't care, except in so far as they will look bad.What a load of crap.
Everyone has self-interest. Deciding that some shouldn't be able to speak just because they want to make a profit is crazy. I want to make a profit too, by the way.
You can't just decide that some speech is corrupt or evil and restrict it on those grounds.
,... Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.
I'm sure this logic is a shining example of at least one of these fallacies.
No time to dig it out right now.
My reponse to your comment (above) is to make you aware of the difference in reality between a vote and speech. No-one has to listen to a corporation 'speak.' So, their speech no matter how compelling and funded can be easily ignored.
Votes, on the other hand must be counted. Respected. Must be factored into policy decisions.
No beneficial purpose is served by conferring on Corporations the right to free speech. And much harm is done by doing so.
When you speak in such absolutes, you leave yourself wide open to losing your credibility. As it only takes one exception to your (absolute) claim,... to prove it false.
You may be able to list several examples to support your claim that "much harm is done" by giving corporations the 'right to free speech.' And most of those examples will likely be 'sibjective.'
In contrast,... it would only take one example where granting a corporation the 'right to free speech' is 'beneficial' to destroy your above (absolute) claim.
That doesn't fly, the actors etc, are exercising their rights to free speech.
They just happened to be paid for it.
Being paid makes no difference.
The parishioners own the church collectively but if the church was banned, it could infringe on their individual right to practice freely.
Okay, so we're in agreement. GM can pay me $25 million to film and distribute a whole bunch of ads supporting its preferred candidate. GM is not speaking, they're simply giving me money while I exercise my right to free speech.
Each parishioner could practice their religion on their own, but they have come together and formed a church. The existence of that church makes their religious practice simpler and more beneficial. By banning the church, the government would be forbidding them from exercising their right to practice as a group. The fact that the individuals could continue to practice their religion on their own does not excuse this constitutional violation.
Each individual could exercise free speech on their own, but they have come together and formed a corporation. The existence of that corporation makes their speech simpler and more beneficial. By banning the corporation from speaking, the government would be forbidding them from exercising their right to speak as a group. The fact that the individuals could continue to exercise their speech on their own does not excuse this constitutional violation.
I suspect the net effect of this will be a growth in cynicism about all these institutions and a growing distrust of politics.
So, go for it.
The point will still stand, though it may be weakened slightly. The point doesn't require an absolute in order to be valid. If it did, I would have been much more cautious about using one. And I really don't think I'll lose much sleep over the vanishingly small hit to my credibility, but thanks anyway.
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?