Should Multinational Corporations Have Constitutional Rights?

[Jason Warfield]

The answer is no because the rights of the corporation are the rights of those whom own it. In other words, in order to have rights like American citizens, the business must become an independent and sentient being. Since it isn’t, it can only reflect the owners.

For example: Disney. It isn’t the corporation that is being punished by the Florida government for its public stance…it’s the owners and those who run it who are being punished for their views.

Which means that the government of Florida is, in theory, acting in an unconstitutional fashion and imposing itself on the owners and employee’s free speech.

Further, if corporations did indeed have constitutional rights then for certain, DeSantis and the Florida state government are in violation of their rights.

For those who want corporations to have these rights: be careful what you wish for.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

One reason was to only put at risk the assets of the corporation and not the individual owners. Who's going to buy stock in Apple, for example, if their $1,000 investment potentially puts the family home at risk?

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

The purpose is to make a distinction between which assets are owned by a particular business and which assets are not. For example, my landlord has a LLC which owns several rental properties to protect their personal home, ranch and farm lands from being attachable in a lawsuit based on their liability from operation of the rental properties.

 

[Vadinho]

The purpose is to make a distinction between which assets are owned by a particular business and which assets are not. For example, my landlord has a LLC which owns several rental properties to protect their personal home, ranch and farm lands from being attachable in a lawsuit based on their liability from operation of the rental properties.

Not so sure that was the basis for the creation of corporations way back in the 1800s...I guess google might be able to shed a light on the history and motivations.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

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

They weren't "yet." You should be able to look at the wording of the statute in question and the prosecution and see that the plain language would bring in not only documentaries and movies, but also books and opinion pieces. We can see the news media is used all the time for both GOP and Democrat pieces, and not strictly "straight" news stories. Had Citizens United not been overturned, both sides would have started lodging complaints about negative stories - and what would be the principled distinction between the money spent producing opinion pieces, blogs entries, youtube videos, and other such items such that they would not be prohibited, but a book or a documentary film would be prohibited?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not so sure that was the basis for the creation of corporations way back in the 1800s...I guess google might be able to shed a light on the history and motivations.

Mainly to prevent investors (or business partners) from gaining a stake in any assets held outside of that business.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A corporation should not have any rights, although to the extent they exist the shareholders have a property right in their share

 

[ttwtt78640]

A corporation should not have any rights, although to the extent they exist the shareholders have a property right in their share

OK, then they shouldn’t be taxed. This nation was founded largely based on the principle of no taxation without representation.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

OK, then they shouldn’t be taxed. This nation was founded largely based on the principle of no taxation without representation.

Why not?

Taxation without representation was strictly a slogan. The founders who created that slogan never petitioned for representation in parliament

 

[What if...?]

Other. They obviously do not have all the rights of individuals (what the only affirmative poll option offers), but they should (and do) have free speech rights (as the post above clarifies?). Corporations (business entities?) are taxed, regulated and can be sued so they should have at least some limited means of representation (letting their political views be known).

Then they should not be able to write off their living expenses because I can’t as a natural person. Artificial persons should be equal across the board or not. As it is, they get to express themselves but enjoy completely different tax status. Great deal for those who get to use their “voice” but get to write of that voices living expenses.

At the end of the day propaganda costs money. Manipulation below the level of cognition is more than one multibillion dollar industry. There was less money for it when it wasn’t perfectly ok to spend as much on it as necessary to achieve their clients goals.

When the right fails against twitter et al “censoring” speech, what they’re really mad about is propagandists losing their free distribution networks.

 

[What if...?]

OK, then they shouldn’t be taxed. This nation was founded largely based on the principle of no taxation without representation.

Corporations are not people. They exist at the pleasure of the state. They have no rights like people do, nor should they. They provide liability protection to their corporate officers and shareholders. It was sheer laziness that created the corporate “person”. It was just easier to do that to allow corporations to enter into contracts , rent property, etc. The word “incorporate” means “ into a body”. But it has no “body”, is functionally immortal, cannot be imprisoned. Corporations regularly receive fines representing a fraction of a year’s profit for crimes that would send a natural person to prison for decades.

TL/DR: The system needs to be addressed as corporate persons enjoy a superior position to natural persons. And it isn’t an accident that the volume of corporate support and apologetics increased dramatically post Citizens United.

 

[What if...?]

Coprporations may not be individual people but they do have rights. What makes anyone think differently.

They don’t have “rights”. They have privileges. They exist at the pleasure of the government they incorporate in. That incorporation can be rescinded. Their officers claim their rights to speech transmit through the corporation. That it is the natural persons’ “speech”.

But that corporation is something they hide behind when things go wrong. Shields those natural persons from the consequences of their actions. “It wasn’t me, it was the corporation!” is the cry when the officers screw up.

But it’s those officers’ speech when they’re paying for propaganda.

Do you see how that is problematic?

 

[What if...?]

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

And when the feds did away with parole, guess who still gets parole?

That’s right, white collar criminals. Whose crimes often dwarf those of folks who languish for decades.

 

[What if...?]

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?

That isn’t what happened. What actually happened was a case involving electioneering too close to an election.

The Supreme Court took that opportunity to grant relief neither party asked for. Money had nothing to do with the case, but the court decided to “correct” what they saw as an unconstitutional limitation on corporate political spending.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Corporations are not people. They exist at the pleasure of the state. They have no rights like people do, nor should they. They provide liability protection to their corporate officers and shareholders. It was sheer laziness that created the corporate “person”. It was just easier to do that to allow corporations to enter into contracts , rent property, etc. The word “incorporate” means “ into a body”. But it has no “body”, is functionally immortal, cannot be imprisoned. Corporations regularly receive fines representing a fraction of a year’s profit for crimes that would send a natural person to prison for decades.

TL/DR: The system needs to be addressed as corporate persons enjoy a superior position to natural persons. And it isn’t an accident that the volume of corporate support and apologetics increased dramatically post Citizens United.

They are no different than labor unions, PACs or collections of “non-profit” people including BLM.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

That isn’t what happened. What actually happened was a case involving electioneering too close to an election.

The Supreme Court took that opportunity to grant relief neither party asked for. Money had nothing to do with the case, but the court decided to “correct” what they saw as an unconstitutional limitation on corporate political spending.

The "electioneering" was the release of a documentary film about Hillary Clinton. The "spending" was the money it cost to make the movie.

To "electioneer" is to take part actively and energetically in the activities of an election campaign. That's at the heart of the first amendment right to freedom of speech. When electioneering involves saying or writing stuff, it's first amendment speech.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

And when the feds did away with parole, guess who still gets parole?

That’s right, white collar criminals. Whose crimes often dwarf those of folks who languish for decades.

Not accurate - federal parole remains for:

• those convicted of certain militar crimes who serve their sentences in federal prison (the Bureau of Prison or BOP)
• certain international prisoners whose cases are transferred to the federal government by treaty, and
• state probationers and parolees who are transferred to federal supervision under the Federal Witness Protection Program
• Persons convicted of Washington DC felonies (not federal)
• Persons convicted of crimes committed before 1987.

There is no parole for federal white collar crimes.

 

[Moon]

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

If you’re correct that friggen companies don’t have rights, do you believe they can be searched without any warrants being issued?

 

[What if...?]

The "electioneering" was the release of a documentary film about Hillary Clinton. The "spending" was the money it cost to make the movie.

To "electioneer" is to take part actively and energetically in the activities of an election campaign. That's at the heart of the first amendment right to freedom of speech. When electioneering involves saying or writing stuff, it's first amendment speech.

Nobody asked the court to address spending.

It was an ad lib.

“We noticed this and decided now was the time to deal with it. “

 

[bongsaway]

For doing what?

Who would you send to prison for the following:

Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For an accident? Probably nobody unless the captain was derelict in his duties.

Who went to jail for the cigarette scandal, whey they all knew smoking caused cancer?
Who goes to jail in any of the instances a company knows a product they've created is detrimental to people's health?
Who is going to jail over the opioid crisis? In a town of forty thousand they used four million painkillers?

You know and I know in ninety five percent of this kind of thing, a company gets fined.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Nobody asked the court to address spending.

It was an ad lib.

“We noticed this and decided now was the time to deal with it. “

Here is the opinion. What page will I find that on? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

 

[MrNiceGuy]

For an accident? Probably nobody unless the captain was derelict in his duties.

Who went to jail for the cigarette scandal, whey they all knew smoking caused cancer?
Who goes to jail in any of the instances a company knows a product they've created is detrimental to people's health?
Who is going to jail over the opioid crisis? In a town of forty thousand they used four million painkillers?

You know and I know in ninety five percent of this kind of thing, a company gets fined.

We all know alcohol causes cancer and liver disease. So what? We all know skydiving causes X number of deaths from malfunctions per year. So what? We all know flying in airplanes and driving cars cause 10s of thousands of deaths annually. So what? We all know eating fast food is bad for us and causes various ailments. So what? Are we going to jail everyone? LOL
'

 

[ttwtt78640]

For an accident? Probably nobody unless the captain was derelict in his duties.

Making it the fault of a person’s criminal act (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less) would make it much more difficult to assign (civil) blame to those with deeper pockets.

Who went to jail for the cigarette scandal, whey they all knew smoking caused cancer?

On what criminal charge?

Who goes to jail in any of the instances a company knows a product they've created is detrimental to people's health?

On what criminal charge?

Who is going to jail over the opioid crisis? In a town of forty thousand they used four million painkillers?

On what criminal charge?

You know and I know in ninety five percent of this kind of thing, a company gets fined.

Likely because those involved were not convicted of a criminal charge. Perhaps, you can find an example of a civil case resulting in a prison sentence.

 

[bongsaway]

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.

Lol, uh huh. How many priests have you seen in prison for sexual abuse? Now, how many priests do you suppose the church moves to another parish when too many sexual abuse charges are made against them? I saw on the news last week where, I forget the city, currently has over two hundred complaints about a priest and sexual abuse.

The gop should go after the catholic church who protects their own until they can't, like nixon.

 

[bongsaway]

We all know alcohol causes cancer and liver disease. So what? We all know skydiving causes X number of deaths from malfunctions per year. So what? We all know flying in airplanes and driving cars cause 10s of thousands of deaths annually. So what? We all know eating fast food is bad for us and causes various ailments. So what? Are we going to jail everyone? LOL
'

You are really stretching. These are choices people make, where is the criminal intent behind flying or driving?