Should Multinational Corporations Have Constitutional Rights?

[ttwtt78640]

Everything is taxed at some point, renters do not pay property tax directly, but they do pay it indirectly through rent. Non US citizens pay income, property, and other taxes without representation ( ie not able to vote)

Renters can vote and speak on political matters as well. IMHO, the SCOTUS got it right in saying that the FEC has no power to limit ‘political speech’ by (carefully?) selected corporations “too close” to a federal election. After all, the FEC allows NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, Fox News and countless other ‘news’ corporations to speak on ‘political matters’ anytime they feel the urge to do so.

 

[Vadinho]

Sure they can. It's called "a merger". The divorce is called "anti-trust" once such becomes a monopoly.

You know what? You are right. I stand corrected.

 

[Gaius46]

The CEO is well not like most employees but yes still an employee.
Ill probably come back to your other concerns a bit later though the problem with corporate free speech especially with regards to political representation is that we are really not talking about speech at all since money is not speech. What we tend to forget with the floodgates to political funding is it didnt bring in more voices, it merely commodified politics where politics becomes a game of buying commodities so if you buy more time on major networks you have more speech.

Do you believe corporate free speech has given people more ability to speak?

Remember corporations, unions etc are assemblages of people. So yes for a corporation to be able to represent it's interests means it's owners and employees voices get to be heard in regard to issues that pertain to their employer/company-they-own. I admit that that is a somewhat utopian view and there is and has been abuse but that is a different issue that needs to be addressed separately from the question of whether corporations should be allowed to make campaign contributions.

 

[The Mark]

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?

IMO corporations should have no right to participate in politics.

Individuals or non-profit organizations only.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Of course, and they do. The question is more, should govt be interfering with citizens activities, beyond protecting life and liberty. What life or liberty interest is the govt serving in preventing me from or producing a political video on youtube?

Does the govt have the power to abridge speech?

The government has nothing to do with that. That would be youtube's terms of use.

 

[bomberfox]

Remember corporations, unions etc are assemblages of people. So yes for a corporation to be able to represent it's interests means it's owners and employees voices get to be heard in regard to issues that pertain to their employer/company-they-own. I admit that that is a somewhat utopian view and there is and has been abuse but that is a different issue that needs to be addressed separately from the question of whether corporations should be allowed to make campaign contributions.

Interestingly enough US law only recognizes copyright of things produced by humans, i realized this when i was researching NFTs and some crypto bros were trying to copyright computer generated nfts.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Does the govt have the power to abridge speech?

This is the point that the DeSantis zombies keep missing.

 

[Gaius46]

Interestingly enough US law only recognizes copyright of things produced by humans, i realized this when i was researching NFTs and some crypto bros were trying to copyright computer generated nfts.

Yes though companies can own copyrights - as with a work for hire. Not sure why that is.

 

[jonny5]

The government has nothing to do with that. That would be youtube's terms of use.

Right. Except that the govt made a law which said corporations couldnt spend money on politics 30 days before a primary. When a company tried to upload a video about Hillary to youtube, the govt made them block it.

Does the govt have a right to control youtube, or a abridge speech in such a way? What interest does it serve?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

This is the point that the DeSantis zombies keep missing.

What point? He asked a question, he didn't make a point.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

IMO corporations should have no right to participate in politics.

Individuals or non-profit organizations only.

Many, if not most, non-profit organizations are corporations. Why does being "non-profit" (501c3 tax exempt) afford someone more rights than being taxed?

Well, based on your opinion, you agree with the Citizens United decision (non-profit has a right to free speech under the first amendment which cannot be abridged), and you also agree that DeSantis and the State of Florida can pull the Reedy Creek Development District away from Disney even if it's done to punish Disney for commenting on politics.

 

[The Mark]

Many, if not most, non-profit organizations are corporations. Why does being "non-profit" (501c3 tax exempt) afford someone more rights than being taxed?

Well, based on your opinion, you agree with the Citizens United decision (non-profit has a right to free speech under the first amendment which cannot be abridged), and you also agree that DeSantis and the State of Florida can pull the Reedy Creek Development District away from Disney even if it's done to punish Disney for commenting on politics.

IMO, the need to be profitable is inherently corrupting.

This is one of the core opinions which leads me to conclusions such as:
Private prisons should not be allowed.

 

[Hamish Howl]

What point? He asked a question, he didn't make a point.

Today I learned that Socrates never made a point, because he put things in the form of questions.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Today I learned that Socrates never made a point, because he put things in the form of questions.

Right, exactly. He led people to the point by asking questions, and the points were made by the people answering. That's the Socratic Method.

However, you can't assume the answer and then say "good point." You have to actually answer it, and then possibly your answer will be a good point.