Should Multinational Corporations Have Constitutional Rights?

[Lloyd Christmas]

People have rights, not friggen companies., BUt of course, put enough corporate right wing hacks on SCOTUS and you get that.

When a company does something illegal? The company doesn't go to jail. So why should they consider to have "rights"? Particularly the rights to basically bribe politicians

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Maybe? You think someone who doesn't believe in the validity of private property maybe has suspicious motives when starting a discussion about the merits of private property?

Right - "maybe" - because there are plenty of different motives for "starting a discussion."

I might start a discussion on the merits of private property because I think I'm a communist and I think I understand the communist concept of property, but maybe I like interesting discussions and I want to see what people who think otherwise think. I might want to entertain other ideas. After all, as Aristotle said, it is a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

If you think a communist necessarily has a "suspicious motive" when "starting a discussion about the merits of private property", then what do you believe the motive is? Saying they have a suspicious motive is not identifying the motive. What's suspicious? Motives for things include greed, ambition, power, lust, sadism, masochism, self-gratification, desire for learning, trivial or hobby interest, debate for debate's sake, to persuade, to practice, and the list goes on and on. So, what's the "suspicious motive" you ascribe to communists who start discussions about the merits of private property?

 

[Phys251]

Right - "maybe" - because there are plenty of different motives for "starting a discussion."

I might start a discussion on the merits of private property because I think I'm a communist and I think I understand the communist concept of property, but maybe I like interesting discussions and I want to see what people who think otherwise think. I might want to entertain other ideas. After all, as Aristotle said, it is a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

If you think a communist necessarily has a "suspicious motive" when "starting a discussion about the merits of private property", then what do you believe the motive is? Saying they have a suspicious motive is not identifying the motive. What's suspicious? Motives for things include greed, ambition, power, lust, sadism, masochism, self-gratification, desire for learning, trivial or hobby interest, debate for debate's sake, to persuade, to practice, and the list goes on and on. So, what's the "suspicious motive" you ascribe to communists who start discussions about the merits of private property?

^ This is not the response of someone who is starting an intellectually honest discussion. This is a whiny, defensive post that screams, "My motives are being exposed and I don't like it!"

 

[MrNiceGuy]

People have rights, not friggen companies., BUt of course, put enough corporate right wing hacks on SCOTUS and you get that.

When a company does something illegal? The company doesn't go to jail. So why should they consider to have "rights"? Particularly the rights to basically bribe politicians

Good question. Why indeed? Would you consider that people have freedom of association? And, that a company is an organization of freely associating individuals? And, as such, does not the association of individuals have the right to speak?

Churches, for example, are often organized as companies - maybe an LLC or a corporation - do churches have freedom of religion?

What about companies like PETA and the ACLU? Do they have constitutional rights? Black Lives Matter is a 501c3 company - does BLM have freedom of speech under the Constitution? Is it corporate right wing hacks that would suggest that they do, in fact, have constitutional rights?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

^ This is not the response of someone who is starting an intellectually honest discussion. This is a whiny, defensive post that screams, "My motives are being exposed and I don't like it!"

Your comments really make no sense.

What motives are being exposed here? Which motive? Motive to do what?

I answered your question - are you going to respond to questions posed to you, or do you think this is a one-way street? And, you haven't answered the OP. All you're doing is making stupid comments about whether "righties" have bad motives. Who cares what motive they have? Just imagine the question is being posed by a person whose motives are always pure as the driven snow. What's the answer?

 

[Phys251]

Your comments really make no sense.

What motives are being exposed here? Which motive? Motive to do what?

I answered your question - are you going to respond to questions posed to you, or do you think this is a one-way street? And, you haven't answered the OP. All you're doing is making stupid comments about whether "righties" have bad motives. Who cares what motive they have? Just imagine the question is being posed by a person whose motives are always pure as the driven snow. What's the answer?

If you're having to go to that length to justify your motives, you probably need a mirror check first.

 

[Ren]

So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?

If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?

Corporations have one duty, and one duty only, and that's to make money for their stock holders.

You're not going to make money sexualizing children in their classrooms while attacking their parents.

 

[Gatsby]

Good question. Why indeed? Would you consider that people have freedom of association? And, that a company is an organization of freely associating individuals? And, as such, does not the association of individuals have the right to speak?

Churches, for example, are often organized as companies - maybe an LLC or a corporation - do churches have freedom of religion?

What about companies like PETA and the ACLU? Do they have constitutional rights? Black Lives Matter is a 501c3 company - does BLM have freedom of speech under the Constitution? Is it corporate right wing hacks that would suggest that they do, in fact, have constitutional rights?

I think it's important to distinguish between rights and constitutional rights. We generally extend some rights to corporations, not because the Constitution requires it but because it's good policy to do so. If that changes in the future, the corporations could lose some or all of these rights. Or even the right to exist at all.

People do have freedom of association, but they don't have any inherent right to form LLCs or S-Corps or 501c3's. Even the word 501c3 comes from the relevant section of statutory law rather than the Constitution.

I would argue that there are a few rights that explicitly apply to groups of people (e.g. churches have freedom of religion, media outlets have freedom of the press, PACs/lobbyists have the right to petition the government, etc). But beyond that, there's no inherent constitutional rights that apply to groups of people. We just choose to give them these rights by statute.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Protecting speech from government suppression was never about protecting popular speech.

Pay attention folks.

WW

 

[jamesrage]

So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?

If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?

Corporations are groups of people just like religious groups, PETA, Black Lives Matter, planned parenthood, labor unions, and other groups are. So yes those groups of people have rights.

 

[Gaius46]

People have rights, not friggen companies., BUt of course, put enough corporate right wing hacks on SCOTUS and you get that.

When a company does something illegal? The company doesn't go to jail. So why should they consider to have "rights"? Particularly the rights to basically bribe politicians

Because corporations don't work if they don't have rights. If a corporation isn't legally a person it cannot be sued, it cannot sue, it cannot enter into contracts. It cannot represent its interests.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Yes, corporations should be able to speak on political issues without punishment from the government. I'm not a fan of Citizens United though, which equates dumping money into political ads with free speech. That seems very inappropriate to me. But I have no problem with a corporation issuing a press release saying "We as a company endorse Congressman Smith for governor."

Actually, the Citizens United case involved, a nonprofit organization that wished to distribute a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008. The Federal Election Commission threatened Citizens United with legal action if it aired or publicized the movie.

If the Citizens United case had been ruled the other way, then the October 13, 2020, release of Totally Under Control (the anti-Trump documentary) would have been a violation in the same way. If Citizens United went the other way, speech about candidates within 60 days before an election would have been silenced. Candidates would have loved it.

 

[jamesrage]

You know what corporations who are people if I remember Mitt correctly don't have. Guess what corporations don't get, locked up when they commit a crime. If corporations are indeed people and can say and do whatever with their money again I ask, why does nobody from the corporation go to prison?

If someone in a corporation does something illegal then the person in that group who is responsible for that crime is punished. Just as if a priest of a church molests a kid and is caught then that priest is tried in a court of law and punished while the rest of the church is left alone. If there is a protest happening and a couple dozen people in that group decide to riot, loot or set fire to something then those couple dozen people are arrested and not the whole group.

 

[jamesrage]

People have rights, not friggen companies., BUt of course, put enough corporate right wing hacks on SCOTUS and you get that.

Corporations are groups of people just like religious groups, PETA, planned parenthood, Black Lives Matter, and other groups are. There is not one at a time clause in the bill of rights where you can be a group and other exercise other rights.

When a company does something illegal? The company doesn't go to jail. So why should they consider to have "rights"? Particularly the rights to basically bribe politicians

Of course the company doesn't go t jail. Would all protesters go to jail just because a handful of people rioted? Would all church members go to jail just because one priest molested some kids? Would all of Planned Parenthood go prison for the handful of people selling baby body parts? If a labor union head was embezzling money would the whole union be sent to jail? The person in the group who is the perpetrator of the criminal act is the one who is charged and goes to jail.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually, the Citizens United case involved, a nonprofit organization that wished to distribute a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008. The Federal Election Commission threatened Citizens United with legal action if it aired or publicized the movie.

If the Citizens United case had been ruled the other way, then the October 13, 2020, release of Totally Under Control (the anti-Trump documentary) would have been a violation in the same way. If Citizens United went the other way, speech about candidates within 60 days before an election would have been silenced. Candidates would have loved it.

Nope, because “news media” corporations would have much more power.

 

[Gatsby]

Actually, the Citizens United case involved, a nonprofit organization that wished to distribute a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008. The Federal Election Commission threatened Citizens United with legal action if it aired or publicized the movie.

If the Citizens United case had been ruled the other way, then the October 13, 2020, release of Totally Under Control (the anti-Trump documentary) would have been a violation in the same way. If Citizens United went the other way, speech about candidates within 60 days before an election would have been silenced. Candidates would have loved it.

I think a much more measured response to the question of "Can corporations run these documentaries?" would have been "Yes, because these documentaries are not the same as spending money on campaign ads." Instead the courts went with "Yes, because corporations can spend as much as money as they want on campaign ads."

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I think a much more measured response to the question of "Can corporations run these documentaries?" would have been "Yes, because these documentaries are not the same as spending money on campaign ads." Instead the courts went with "Yes, because corporations can spend as much as money as they want on campaign ads."

Well, see the Democrats and Leftists opposing the Citizens United Decision argued that the money these documentaries cost to make constitute "spending money"... That's what the Democrats/Left said were the improper "campaign contributions" - the financing/funding of the documentaries. So, if it cost be $1,000,000 to make a juicy documentary which is critical of Joe Biden and I wanted to release the movie a month before the election to get maximum interest, then that would be what the Democrats have argued should be prohibited. I should have to hold the movie until after the election, says the proponents of the law struck down by Citizens United decisions.

 

[bomberfox]

Because corporations don't work if they don't have rights. If a corporation isn't legally a person it cannot be sued, it cannot sue, it cannot enter into contracts. It cannot represent its interests.

You can certainly sue the person running them without corporate personhood. The interests are decided by the board of directors, the CEO, the president, etc. they can enter into contracts.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

You can certainly sue the person running them without corporate personhood. The interests are decided by the board of directors, the CEO, the president, etc. they can enter into contracts.

The personhood for contract purposes is determined by state statute. You can look up any US State's corporation code and see that the law specifically grants a corporation separate identity and limited liability to the owners as separate persons. So, a corporation can enter a contract as if it is a separate person from its owners only if it complies with state statutes. If it doesn't comply with state statutes, it's considered a partnership or an unincorporated association, in which case the owners are liable under the contracts signed on behalf of the company.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Nope, because “news media” corporations would have much more power.

If Citizens United were decided the other way, news media publishing stories and/or opinions critical of candidates would also be violating the law struck down by Citizens United. The SCOTUS did the country a great service in striking down that statute.

 

[Gaius46]

You can certainly sue the person running them without corporate personhood. The interests are decided by the board of directors, the CEO, the president, etc. they can enter into contracts.

There are a whole host of practical problems you have to deal with.

First, in the case of liability, is figuring out who to hold responsible. That isn't easy in an organization of thousands, or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands employees. Especially if they're involved in complex work. You might say "okay hold the CEO responsible" but is that fair in all cases and does it even make sense? Would you even be able to FIND CEOs if they could be held personally responsible for what their underlings do. Who has the resources to sue a big company if they have to spend time and money investigating exactly who (and more likely it's a bunch of people) in that 100,000 person company actually is responsible?

And that doesn't even address the fact that the CEO is simply an employee and we may want to hold owners responsible. Try tracking down and enforcing judgments against millions of owners spread across the globe.

It is much simpler, cheaper, fairer - more efficient - to just sue the entity itself.

Contracts are no different. If I enter into a contract to buy software for the corporation I work for - something I did pretty routinely in my last job (and I wasn't the CEO just a line manager) - and the accounts payable department says "screw it we ain't paying" am I to be sued? After all I signed my name on the contract.

Those are just two simple examples.

Interests may be decided by the BoD but to represent those interests - to government, to media - requires free speech which needs to be protected.

Corporate personhood was created because it's easier to deal with a corporation as single entity instead of as a collection of thousands of people.

 

[Captain Adverse]

So, does a corporation have freedom of speech and religion?

Not really. But the citizens involved do through that corporate entity.

A corporation is a "legal fiction" of a person, designed to limit liability of actions taken against it to its corporate assets, and (typically) not to the personal assets of investors.

If the government takes action to limit corporate speech, as it did in the Citizens United case, should corporations have the right to speak on political issues without suffering punishment or repercussions from the government?

Wherever did you get the idea that common citizens are not held to account by "government action" in the exercise of free speech? Were you not aware of civil and criminal laws regarding expression? Libel, Slander, etc.?

Various news media corporations were sued by the Convington Kids for their publication of libel/slander. The corporations paid, but the investors themselves were "safe."

 

[Vadinho]

White kids sell plenty of dime bags, and black people commit plenty of white collar crimes.

So? I am talking about penalties and the unequal outcomes of people without status....Although Bernie Madoff did get what was coming to him.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If Citizens United were decided the other way, news media publishing stories and/or opinions critical of candidates would also be violating the law struck down by Citizens United. The SCOTUS did the country a great service in striking down that statute.

I disagree since none were deemed to have run afoul of that (BS?) FEC ruling.

 

[Vadinho]

Wasn't the whole point of creating a corporation was to shield the owners and officers from liability? It was created in part to protect the ruling class from the consequences of their business dealings. Corp A makes a lousy earthen dam that breaks and wipes out an entire town. The guy who owns the corporation did not go to jail for negligence. A man does that on his property and he gets the hammer.