
Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress - chaosmachine
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/
======
grellas
Why, when something becomes politically animated, do standards tend to be
lowered?

HN is a community of very smart individuals and, when it comes to argument,
has had several very good discussions about Paul Graham's piece on the merits
of logical argument, entitled "How to Disagree"
(<http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html?>)

The essence of that piece was as follows: "If we're all going to be
disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to
disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling
and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on
the intermediate stages."

There followed a series of stages, ranked from low forms of argumentation such
as name-calling, _ad hominem_ attacks, etc. to high forms such as carefully
reasoned refutations.

Now, if we were to classify the spirit of the implicit argument made by the
idea that a corporation is running for Congress, it would amount to saying: "I
can't believe that anyone would say that a corporation is a person and isn't
it ridiculous to assume that an artificial construct of this type has rights -
therefore, anyone who would say this is assumed to be a real idiot in
believing that a 'person' of this type could run for office."

Though the "argument" is implicit and not cast as an express argument, the
implied argument it does make ranks, I think, right at the bottom of Paul
Graham's hierarchy, somewhere among the "name calling," "ad hominem," and
"contradiction" categories (the latter, by the way, representing a form of
argument where one simply sets forth a contradictory position without
attempting to reason why it is valid, as for example, when one asserts "it is
obviously unsupportable for someone to treat a corporation as a person.")

I know there is a certain level at which this is being treated as a joke, or
more precisely as a clever jab at a disfavored position.

My question: how does jumping on to this bandwagon get reconciled with the
normally high standards of argumentation and debate found here at HN?

~~~
coffeemug
It isn't a joke. It's a very serious legal precedent that, if pushed hard
enough, can go all the way to Supreme Court (which would most likely reject
the case, letting the last decision stand). It is an excellent example of a
serious issue with case-based law, as practiced within the U.S. It's a hack,
and it's designed to demonstrate both the absurdity of the Supreme Court's
decision when taken to a logical extreme, and the limitations of our legal
system. It's also very clever. The fact that it is satirical in nature is only
of cursory interest.

~~~
grellas
There are lots of serious implications stemming from the Court's recent
decision and one doesn't have to look far to find a serious discussion of
them, no matter how one views the merits of the issue. See, for example, this
piece on how the "High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases"
([http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&High...](http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&High_Court_Campaign_Finance_Opinion_Roils_Dozens_of_Cases)).

Since the law has recognized corporations as "legal persons" for a couple of
centuries at least, all without anyone even beginning to think that a
corporation is a citizen entitled to vote and to run for office, I think there
is a long-standing rationale for this position that its critics need to
address before simply declaring the point to be absurd. This sort of stunt
obviously fails to do this. And, far from demonstrating the absurdity of the
Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your
characterization), it does no more than take a _straw man_ position out to a
logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing (at least nothing serious as
far as law is concerned). It is, therefore, a low form of argumentation.

I understand that people feel passionately about it, and therefore appreciate
a clever ploy that appears to make their point, but that is really my point:
it is that very animated spirit that we can have about politics that allows us
to lower standards and find acceptable in that context a way of arguing that
we would axiomatically reject in another context.

~~~
coffeemug
_far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to
a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than
take a straw man position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates
nothing_

This is a much better explanation of the view point you expressed originally -
probably the best I've seen so far. I agree with you here completely. I still
think it's a clever hack, but I concede that my original argument wasn't very
strong.

------
jsyedidia
Everybody seems to argue about this issue without ever referring to the text
of the first amendment, which is what the majority of the Supreme Court based
its decision on.

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."

To me, it seems pretty obvious that by passing McCain-Feingold, Congress had
made a law "abridging the freedom of speech." It should not be surprising that
it was ruled unconstitutional.

~~~
mbreese
Here is what I'm worrying about... will there be a purpose formed corporation
whose sole goal is the election of an individual? They could accept money from
investors to finance their operation. Then in the last 2 weeks of an election
buy all available airtime nationwide (or just in swing states) and say just
spout total lies about an opponent. Something like "XXX will force us into a
fascist government". 24x7 before an election. Given enough money, they could
buy all the airtime available, leaving no time for any opposition ads.

They have the right to lie, and if they are sued for liable / defamation,
etc... they are a corporation that can be disbanded. And because they are a
corporation, there is limited liability to the owners.

~~~
fleitz
Corporations are already formed for the sole purpose of electing an individual
aka. The Committee to Elect Barack Obama.

Also, buying all the airtime is basically impossible as it decreases supply
while increasing demand. Once investors realized someone was trying to do
that, they'd buy ad space just to sell to that company. It would be incredibly
expensive to organize all the sub-companies needed to buy it all with out
anyone noticing. If anyone notices the gig is up as investors will swoop in to
take a cut of the action.

Besides, if anyone actually managed to do that, it would be VERY easy for the
other side to get articles written about how their viewpoints can't be
expressed.

It would generate so much free publicity for the other campaign that it would
likely be counterproductive. I'd love to be the candidate opposing the guy who
bought all the ad time. It's pretty much a guaranteed victory because of the
public backlash that would result.

~~~
amalcon
_It would be incredibly expensive to organize all the sub-companies needed to
buy it all with out anyone noticing._

Rockefeller did it. Both Senior and Junior, actually. On multiple occasions.
Now, there's probably nobody alive today with that kind of capital and
influence to burn on this (with possible exception of Bill Gates and the House
of Saud, both of whom seem to have other plans for their money).

------
Semiapies
Corporate "citizenship" is a complete red herring in this issue.

This is not some crazy new doctrine the USSC shat out this year, this is a
legal premise that has existed for over a century. Otherwise, you couldn't sue
a company for damages.

The issue is about political speech for _actual human beings_ in
organizations, including corporations and labor unions (and yet oddly, you
don't hear much bewailing of "union citizenship").

Crying out "ZOMG giving corporations rights!" is nothing more than trying to
short-circuit others' thinking.

~~~
Dryw
But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations.
The human beings are free to do that on their own. They don't need to speak
through the corporations.

Corporations are businesses. They are not sentient. They do not have their own
opinions. They do not require free speech.

~~~
Semiapies
You say "But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in
organizations", but then you say, "They are not sentient. They do not have
their own opinions".

Both of your claims can't be true.

EDIT: Sorry, down-voters, they _can't_ both be true. Either corporations speak
on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities.

~~~
joubert
You're wrong. A company's management speaks on behalf of the company. And not
always in the interest of the shareholders, and definitely _never_ in the
interest of _all_ the shareholders.

~~~
Semiapies
OK, so we have "management" and a "company", but no humans?

~~~
joubert
You claimed: "Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or
they're sentient financial entities."

Let's take Exxon. <http://www.google.com/finance?q=exxon>

Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of? Are they all American
citizens, for example? Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run
for a seat in Congress?

~~~
Semiapies
_"Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of?"_

Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf
of.

" _Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in
Congress?_ "

Why _do_ you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever
your real concern is?

~~~
joubert
With the indirection that corporate structure creates, the following are some
of my concerns:

1) You mention "Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it)
acts on behalf of."

a) 'the people within it' --> a company does emphatically not speak for the
people within it. This is in stark contrast with a political party or other
groups joined by individuals for political purposes

b) you could argue for the shareholders --> but, the major shareholders are
mostly pension funds etc. Membership to these funds is mandated by employers,
with little choice by employees (i.e. most voters).

2) And your 2nd comment: "Why do you dive on this red herring instead of
trying to address whatever your real concern is?"

The United States Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice
of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave
our democracy?

~~~
Semiapies
_"'the people within it' -- > a company does emphatically not speak for the
people within it."_

I did not say it necessarily did, though it's certainly speaking for its
leadership, who answers to the human shareholders and is voluntarily
associated with the other people in the company.

 _"This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by
individuals for political purposes"_

Indeed. It's a group created for other purposes. Political involvement is a
valid avenue for pursuing those purposes, as the political system affects the
group.

 _"If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the
voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that
leave our democracy?"_

That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt.
EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse
the uninformed.

~~~
joubert
"That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt.
EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse
the uninformed."

Uhm, huh? Let's say Exxon runs for a seat. During its term, 20% of Exxon is
purchased by PetroChina. So now the seat is no longer under American control.
The person who was elected to Congress is no longer the same person; legally
it is still Exxon, but in reality it is a _different_ person since the new
shareholder, who is a foreigner, exerts significant influence.

Or is my reasoning bogus?

~~~
Semiapies
Yes, the reasoning is bogus because Exxon _can't take public office_. Full
stop.

You - and many other people in this discussion - are confusing different legal
concepts of "person" as well as "citizen". People like those in the linked
story are working to encourage that confusion.

~~~
joubert
I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all.

However, I am assuming the company in the article is thinking it stands a
chance, as evidenced by it spending dollars to test how far it can go.
Otherwise they're pretty stupid, which they may very well be.

~~~
Semiapies
" _I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all._ "

OK, but your scenario requires that confusion.

The people in the article are engaging in a _stunt_. They don't expect or
intend to win, and they probably won't spend much or long on the campaign.

------
jsm386
For a second I thought The Times was republishing a story that The Onion
posted today:
[http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al...](http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows)

 _"This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain
(R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll
numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-
digit margin. "_

------
waterlesscloud
This sort of thing depresses me. The vast majority of people don't understand
the SCOTUS decision, or even know what it was really about, or what the basis
for the decision was.

Furthermore, few seem to understand what the concept of a corporation having
some of the legal attributes of a person is about, and how it has almost
nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision.

And you see the constant misinformation that corporations are legally
obligated to follow whatever path leads to the most profit.

It's just depressing how little people understand about the society they live
in.

------
kevingadd
Given that corporations are directly accountable to their shareholders, I
wouldn't be amazed if this actually turned out to be a better model than the
current one (where a congressman gets elected and can basically do whatever
they want until the next election without immediate consequences).

</half-joking>

~~~
ubernostrum
Why is there a persistent assumption that a politician accountable to voters
is under less pressure than a corporate director accountable to shareholders?
Both are elected periodically, and both must use their terms in office to do,
or attempt to do, things desired of them by the people who elected them.

And, to be perfectly honest, I think you'll find that self-serving behavior,
corruption and malfeasance are just as common in corporations as in politics.

~~~
pyre
Maybe, but it's probably easier to lead a shareholder revolt against a
corporate board of directors and/or CEO than to oust an entrenched
Congressperson/Senator. Re-election is 98% guaranteed once you're in office (I
pulled the number out of my ass, but I know that the number is high; i.e.
somewhere between 90%-100%).

~~~
jerf
I decided to fact-check you, and according to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States)
, "In recent years this [incumbent reelection rate] rate has been well over 90
per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every
election cycle."

So, uh, consider your fact duly checked. :)

------
adelevie
If the corporation is under 35 years of age, it can't run for president.
Sorry, startups!

~~~
sophacles
Corporations aren't natural born, and therefore can never be president.
Although if we repeal the natural born requirement we can finally see Arnold
run against Cyberdyne (and this time its for the presidency!...).

~~~
Goronmon
_No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and
who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall
be chosen._

I'm pretty sure all you have to prove is that a corporation isn't a "person"
or a "citizen".

~~~
sophacles
First of all, the whole point of the company doing this is that coporations
are persons according to the law. I know nothing of citizenship of
corporations.

Second, I was replying to the poster talking about presidency, not to the
company's bid for congress. The relevant bits for president are _No person
except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time
of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President;_ The specific word being natural. The basis for corporations being
granted personhood the same as a human being is the lack of the word natural
in the relevant bits of the US constitution.

~~~
Goronmon
Are you sure it's that they "are" persons or just they are considered to have
rights similar to the rights a person has? Seems like a pretty important
distinction.

~~~
sophacles
Corporations are _legal persons_. This is not the same a human beings which
are _natural persons_. The defining issues in corporate law came from the
anti-slavery amendments to the US constitution. All hinged around the usage of
the term _natural person_ vs the term _person_.

Edit: this means that the generic _person_ covers both _natural persons_ and
_legal persons_

------
tokenadult
Text of the Supreme Court opinion:

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html>

~~~
amohr
Money line: "The Government may regulate corporate political speech through
disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech
altogether."

------
aik
This seriously must be a joke. Isn't it? From their website:

"Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area,
has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an
emerging new market.

The campaign’s designated human, Eric Hensal, will help the corporation
conform to antiquated “human only” procedures and sign the necessary voter
registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new
opportunity. “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market
before the whole store is bought by China.”"

This seems like mockery to me.

~~~
sorbus
The campaign video makes it pretty clear that this is satire; I find it a bit
disturbing that people seem to be taking it seriously.

... on the other hand, if it isn't satire, I am extremely scared.

------
mivok
One of the best comments I saw on the page was that, if one person has the
right to free speech, then groups of people also have a right to free speech.
However, it also seems clear to me that if one person can have a seat in
congress, multiple people can't have that seat. This argument would allow the
courts to strike this down while keeping the Citizens United decision in full
force.

------
bballant
I love it when The Onion predicts real life and reminds us how absurd things
can be:

[http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_al...](http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows)

------
aarongough
Surely this is a joke, or at least a publicity stunt...

 _"Now that democracy is truly for sale, Murray Hill Incorporated are offering
top dollar..."_

~~~
aarongough
Why the downvotes? The quote above is directly taken from the campaign video
provided on the linked website.

------
jacoblyles
Cheap partisan fair. The gas station hotdog of political commentary.

------
trunnell
I'm very disappointed with the comments I see on this thread.

I think the problem many people have with _Citizens United v. FEC_ is that it
opens the door to political activity that seems counter to our long held
principal of _one man, one vote._

I don't think anyone has a problem with a group of people pooling their
resources with the intent to run campaign ads on a given topic or candidate.
That's basic democratic activity.

The problem occurs when resources are highly concentrated in an individual
such that he can drown out the voice of others.

The natural tradeoff in capitalism is between efficiency and equality:
resources are deployed efficiently but the gains are distributed unequally.
Capital owners necessarily benefit the most from capitalism. Businesses
generally own the most capital in our system; there are a few billionaire
individuals, but the vast majority of billionaires are corporations.

So in a campaign system where money buys voter attention, the loudest and most
attention-getting speakers will tend to be corporations. These speakers who
have disproportionate influence have the ability to control political
discourse based more on the size of their megaphone than on the quality of
their ideas. This should be troubling to anyone who values enlightenment-era
principles like the best ideas winning on their own merits via rational
discourse.

In practice, greater influence imbues additional voting power in these
speakers, both through direct leverage with Congressional representatives as
well as through the power to dominate the airwaves at election time. Large
corporations don't have just a few times more influence, they have 3-6 orders
of magnitude more influence than the average individual. They meet directly
with Senators. When was the last time you had a personal meeting with your
Senator?

This is what people mean when they complain that companies can "buy elections"
or "buy legislation." I think everyone would agree that this is already
occurring. Witness the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act, brought to you by
the Disney Corporation. Very few legal scholars would argue that this
legislation was in the public interest.

 _Citizens United_ opens the door to even greater corporate influence in our
political discourse. Many people believe it will only worsen this situation of
vastly unequal participation in our democracy.

~~~
trunnell
Lawrence Lessig sums it up better than I can:

 _The point is simple, if extraordinarily difficult for those of us proud of
our traditions to accept: this democracy no longer works. Its central player
has been captured. Corrupted. Controlled by an economy of influence
disconnected from the democracy. Congress has developed a dependency foreign
to the framers' design. Corporate campaign spending, now liberated by the
Supreme Court, will only make that dependency worse. "A dependence" not, as
the Federalist Papers celebrated it, "on the People" but a dependency upon
interests that have conspired to produce a world in which policy gets sold._

<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100222/lessig>

------
dantheman
Flagged

This is so stupid, people don't understand that groups of people should have
the same rights as individuals. The campaign finance laws disallow small
groups and small companies to buy advertisements expressing their opinions
while allow large groups and companies to setup PACS to do it.

~~~
ericd
Care to justify that opinion that a company deserves the same rights as an
individual? A company generally greatly magnifies the will of a single person,
or a very small group of people, making their voice much stronger than that of
a common citizen. This concentration of power in the hands of a corporate
elite, combined with the rights of a citizen presents the opportunity for the
creation of an oligarchy of corporate elites that effectively sway the
decisions of many citizens.

This is pretty counter to many of the ideas at the core of the country's
foundation. That's what I and many others "don't understand" about your
contention.

~~~
yummyfajitas
A company does not have free speech or any other rights, but it's shareholders
have the right to use their company for speech. Similarly, your computer does
not have any rights, but you do have the right to post hacker news comments
using your computer (provided pg lets you).

If you truly believe people have the right to use their corporations for
speech, then what prevents the government from censoring corporate newspapers
like the NYT?

~~~
chrischen
> Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but you do have the right
> to post hacker news comments using your computer (provided pg lets you).

But you're assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice a group's opinions,
when that's not the case. Furthermore the government is supposed to serve
individual people and to _make sure_ that every person gets an equal voice in
government.

Is it morally okay to let a company, which is designed to increase profit and
power, to be used to also push certain agendas? For example, if Apple, who
sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the
money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think
this is okay? What the hell do iPods and iPads have to do with racial
segregation? See the problem here? Apple has a vested interest in profit and
sales.

!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain
agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will
have undeserved representation in our government!!!

Contrast it with an organization designed to _emphasize_ a certain agenda by
collecting the people who support it together. The power and influence of that
interest is directly correlated to its demand.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders
opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter.

 _For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to
segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods
and iPads, do you think this is okay?_

It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard
"increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable
for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value.
In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority
shareholders.

However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights
of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably
increase shareholder value.

On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their
profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to
by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the
minority.

This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a
company, don't buy shares.

 _!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push
certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits'
will have undeserved representation in our government!!!_

This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people
to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have
persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.

For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods
(community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government
insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from
speaking?

~~~
chrischen
> I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the
> shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the
> corporate charter.

Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate
charter.

> It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard
> "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be
> acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased
> shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the
> rights of minority shareholders.

So isn't pushing agendas that have the sole purpose of increasing shareholder
value potentially contradictory to the interests of the general public
population of citizens, whom the government are obligated to serve?

> On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of
> their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as
> agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the
> opinion of the minority.

Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests
characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable
opinions.

> This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of
> a company, don't buy shares.

Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to
indirectly support segregation?

> This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people
> to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have
> persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.

Yes we allow individuals to do that. But there is a reason corporations
imposing their influence is frowned upon. I think your misunderstanding stems
from the fact that you see a company as having the rights of a person. But a
company is not a person. A company does not have the same needs as a person
and thus it has the possibility of having conflicting interests with those of
a citizen. The government is here to provide equal representation for
citizens, not arbitrary entities.

> For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through
> methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to
> government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be
> forbidden from speaking?

No because Barack Obama is a human, he is not a corporation. He has a right to
speak for human beings' interests because he is one (at least the last time I
checked). A company is not a human. It has a distinct non-human character
defined by your so called "corporate charter." A corporation accruing power
(through money) is different from a human accruing power through money, or
otherwise. A corporation does it because it has to, a human does it for a
plethora of reasons unknown. But we do know that whatever the human's reasons
are, they are because he/she is a human. And the government is supposed to
represent the interest of human citizens.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Then the company will become a vessel to voice the opinion of the corporate
charter._

The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it unacceptable
chose not to buy shares.

 _Again the company now is acting as an inhuman entity. It has interests
characterized by a charter, not by a human being's potentially malleable
opinions._

The company is acting as a group of people who have agreed to devote a certain
amount of their wealth (their initial investment) to work toward a certain
purpose (whatever the charter says).

The "company" doesn't actually exist - all there is is a set of contracts
between shareholders. The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify
interactions between the shareholders and other parties.

 _Yes but some of us can't say no to an iPhone. Should we be forced to
indirectly support segregation?_

If you choose to buy products from companies supporting segregation, that's on
you. Steve Jobs doesn't have mind control rays. He neither forced you to buy
shares or an iPhone.

Also, the issue if your trading partners spending money on causes you dislike
is not limited to corporations. For all you know, the owner of your local
bakery is a secret racist sending money to the Klan.

~~~
chrischen
I'd also like to add: > Similarly, your computer does not have any rights, but
you do have the right to post hacker news comments using your computer
(provided pg lets you).

You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker
news comments, not your computer. The computer is a direct representation of
you. A company is a distinct entity created from the collection of people.
Your analogy is faulty.

> The charter was agreed to by all shareholders. Those who found it
> unacceptable chose not to buy shares.

Yet the charter which is agreed upon is a distinct entity concocted by human
beings. At best it's a monster like frankenstein.

> The "company" is merely a legal facade to simplify interactions between the
> shareholders and other parties.

Yet the company is also a distinct entity.

Look the US government guarantees rights to individuals, not groups or
corporations. Groups that come together for a common interest only amplify
their voice by the collective pooling of their _individual_ voices. A
corporation pools those individual voices into a mob, which does something
else independent of any one person's will. It's a _distinct_ entity. It is not
a human. It does not have rights like a citizen.

I can't stress this enough: the government guarantees certain right to
individual people, not groups that can be arbitrarily formed.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_You're supposed to only have one account. PG gives YOU a right to post hacker
news comments, not your computer._

And the government is not restricting your rights with it's "no criticizing
Obama with a computer" law. It's only restricting the actions of your
computer.

A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group of
people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms.
Incidentally, the government does grant people the right to form groups - it's
called "peaceable assembly".

But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up
all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the
government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my
association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?

Also, this brings us back to my (and Robert's) original question: if free
speech doesn't apply to corporations, can the government censor the corporate
media?

~~~
chrischen
> A company is not a distinct entity. A company is nothing more than a group
> of people acting together according to some mutually agreed upon terms.

People lose their individuality when participating as part of a mob. A group
is a distinct entity formed by a mob. It is not like any of the individual
singled out people.

The mob when formed acquires distinct characteristics and behaviors that
distinguish it from any individual human being, who may be governed by
neurons, emotions, and psychological disorders, etc. A mob can also be
potentially a million times more powerful than a single human being, so how
can you give such an entity the rights of an individual? Moreover, humans may
like chickens and dogs, but a mob, through some freak compromise, decides to
satisfy itself by breeding a half dog / chicken. Such a thing would never be
concocted at the individual level, but is potentially possible at the mob
level. And if it works out, it could actually be the most logical solution to
satisfy the mob (an entity).

> But lets ignore that. Do you believe that after forming a group, you give up
> all constitutional rights when acting as part of the group? I.e., while the
> government can't censor me, it can censor papers I publish as part of my
> association with a larger group (NYU, my employer)?

That depends. If the sole purpose of you publishing your paper is to advance
the factional agendas of NYU, AND if NYU acknowledges that your paper is
speaking for NYU, the entity, then yes. But that doesn't mean you can't
personally publish the paper. The only thing that can be potentially forbidden
is NYU, using it's power to give your paper more voice and merit than it
deserves. However if you are publishing it personally, then no such regulation
can happen because constitutionally your rights are protected.

~~~
chrischen
I want to add to that. So consider the United States (assuming you live in the
US). Do you consider it just a vessel for your opinions? Do you agree with and
support everything the United States does? I'm going to assume you said no to
that (if yes, then I'm arguing with a crazy person). And do you think any one
person in the United States agrees with everything the United States
government does? It would be _extremely_ unlikely if it does happen, and even
if it does happen, the US government has the possibility of veering away from
that person. This is because the US government is a distinct entity formed
when the mob of people come together. Unlike your computer, it does not act
exactly as you do.

Remember the focus is not on the company, it's on what the company creates
when it is a formation of a bunch of people. It creates a distinct entity
which usually ends up being a compromise of its constituents wishes. People
act differently in a group, they can lose their humanity, and usually there's
less responsibility for misdeeds. This thing the mob creates should _in no way
be treated on the same level as any individual constituent of it_. This is
because, as I have tried to show you, it is not simply a vessel of any single
human being.

------
ubulgaria
Well, if campaign contributions are limited (to level the playing field) then
a company's expenditures should be using the campaign contribution allowance
of its shareholders.

------
known
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism>

------
byrneseyeview
I hope this kind of thing illustrates the absurdity of democracy in general.
For a company to have influence, it needs to accumulate money, which means it
needs to make customers happy or convince investors that it can do so.

For a voter to have influence, they have to survive for eighteen years and
then find their way to a polling place.

~~~
westbywest
This is a straw man, since the federal gov't is a republic rather than a
strict democracy.

And what would you propose as alternative to permitting everyone living in
this country long enough to reach adulthood to cast their their own vote?

------
joubert
Does this mean _foreign_ corporations can also run for our Congress?

That would be fucking insane.

~~~
joubert
I'm curious. Are people more offended by the expletive than they are concerned
about the possibility that foreign companies can run for actual seats in
Congress?

~~~
Semiapies
I'm more dismayed that the USSC decision has been so thoroughly misrepresented
by people like the company in TFA that you would ask that question in all
seriousness and good faith.

~~~
joubert
I hope you're right.

------
elblanco
If only we had words that differentiated a _person_ from a _corporation_.

------
joubert
I wonder what McCain makes of this. He's been flip-flopping quite a bit
recently.

------
indu
Talk about cutting out the middle man.

------
noonespecial
Ahh, so we're finally cutting out the middle-man then. Nice.

------
eddie_catflap
It reminded me of the (excellent) Charles Stross book Accelerando. Let's face
it, it's the next step. We're just marking time till someone builds a
Matrioshka brain around the Sun anyway.

------
guelo
Shouldn't FDA/FTC regulations on things like product labeling and false
advertising be ruled unconstitutional? Isn't a corporation's free speech being
violated when they aren't allowed to lie about their product?

~~~
Perceval
Free speech protections for individuals don't protect us against prosecution
for making fraudulent claims or certain types of lies (e.g. libel, slander,
yelling fire in a crowded theater, perjury, and so on). Why would a right to
free speech protect corporations for making fraudulent or otherwise
endangering statements about their products?

~~~
guelo
So you're saying we already have reasonable exceptions to the first amendment
to protect society from behavior deemed objectionable as determined by
congress? Kind of like when congress decided that corporations should be kept
of the political process.

