Justice Thomas on Corporate Politics
Justice Thomas spoke at a law school on the recent Citizens United decision:
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”
* * *
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Gee, it’s so simple. Simple as Thomas himself. Glad that we have such a great intellect making court decisions. I feel better, and I’m sure that the foreign owned corporations do too. I mean, they have now achieved a level of citizenship heretofor unheard of in our country. It will make things so much easier for the Chinese. Michael Jackson was right. We ARE the world!
This is a tedious reasoning process – simple syllogisms do not translate well in real and complex life. Thomas here shows a sub-par intellect. He does not belong on the highest court in the land.
It seems that since many of those who support the concept that foreign terrorists must have the same rights that U.S. Citizens have in terms of being tried for criminal acts also believe that the freedom of speech is of less value than the freedom of the press.
The freedom of the press is staunchly defended by the very ‘corporations’ that feel compelled to slant the news to support their sense of the ‘correct’ path to public policy.
Must be something different about the interpretation of what is “equal protection under the LAW”
Gonna spend the whole day parsing that one. Will get back to you.
I do note that you have jettisoned any notion of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of such proof likely the reason why so many of these “terrorists” never see a trial. It’s embarrassing to hold a man for six years and then have the case tossed.
All in all, your attitude is totalitarian. You’venot much room to speak about various freedoms.
So now you feel that you have a ‘right’ to limit my freedom of speech. Must be that you have such a superior intellect. Since you brought up my attitude, my position is certainly influenced by those who practice the art of name calling.
WTF? My language was precise. I said that holding a man without accusing him of a crime and putting him trial for years on end is “totalitarian”. It is what it is. Deal with it. The fact that you think it’s OK because you prejudge him to be a “terrorist” is a totalitarian attitude. Deal with it.
There was in place volumes of settled law on political activities of groups. News organizations, regardless of their form of business, were protected under the first amendment. ExxonMobil is not a news organization, but if it were to buy a newspaper chain, it would be one and could say whatever it wanted to say. ExxonMobil could buy advocacy ads. ExxonMobil employees could form PAC’s. ExxonMobil executives bundled contributions to political candidates. ExxonMobil was not deprived in any way. To put that on the same plane with ten people getting together to take out a newspaper ad is absurd.
This ruling is absurd, the result of syllogistic reasoning, and the inability to deal with a complex society where settled power has more impact than written law. We allowed corporations to form under our laws and granted them certain privileges because doing so served a social function. Now Pandora has left the box, and these organizations that have amassed huge amounts of cash are free to launch propaganda campaigns to elect or destroy candidates for office. Every freedom is in jeopardy, every bit of the commons, including net neutrality (which is the only way your freedom to speak here will ever be threatened-not by government, but by corporate power).
Two things (at least) are missing from the right wing perspective on this ruling: One, that advertising is not the same as speech. Technically, it is speech, but in reality, it is propaganda designed to subvert reasoning processes. (I use the term “propaganda” precisely too. It has a technical meaning.) The other is simply scale – these corporations who now have this “freedom” have more cash on hand than many countries in the world. They will simply overwhelm us.
That you cannot see this, that you cannot put things in perspective, is a blind spot that I regard as submission to power. You re3asoned yourself into a corner, and set aside public good for the sake of private power centers.
Justice Thomas spoke? Now, that is news.
Out of 7 responses above mine, not one deconstructs Thomas’ argument. All seem to rely on ad hominem.
Mark, your “propaganda” slant is precisely what politicians do, some more successful than others. Should they forgo their freedom of speech as well?
Craig – propaganda is a byproduct of mass media, and has nothing to do with the speeches of politicians. That’s why I said it had a technical meaning.
And I dealt precisely with the defect in Thomas’s argument – that it was syllogistic – if A and B then C. Thomas doesn’t seem able to deal with a complex society where power is distributed according to amassed wealth, and instead relies on the notion that a small group and ExxonMobil are on the same playhing field. The ruling makes no sense that way.
And, since a Supreme Court Justice made such a weak argument, I concluded that he did not have the intellect to be on the court. No ad hominem. Just what it appears to be.
The Supreme Court’s duty isn’t to deal with “complex society” – that’s up to the legislature or the people. But I assume, Mark, that you don’t much care about the durability of the Constitution.
What cracked me up was the POTUS Comment in the SOTU that this decision will open up Washington to the influence of the special interests. Like Congress isn’t owned by the special interests right now?
Mark, I get what you are saying but you don’t address Thomas’ argument. You moved the goal posts as you administer your ad hominem.
Thomas’ argument is purposely misleading.
Whereas an individual, partnership, or associations (free of government ‘acknowledgment’) are wholly liable for the consequences of their actions – including free speech – the corporation is not. By design, the people acting on behalf of corporations are essentially immune to the NEGATIVE consequences, while at the same time enjoying wholly the fruits of the positive ones.
This is an extreme distortion of responsible action. If a person has the negative’s mitigated but none of the positives, they will indulge more irresponsible, immoral and risky actions since – if they get lucky, they get to win the pot – but if they are unlucky, they don’t have to pay the pot.
To suggest that such evil ghosts as are corporations have the same HUMAN rights as real HUMANS is insulting and bizarre.
Durability of the constitution? C’mon, Dave. Are you an existentialist too?
I would suggest that we’re all existentialists to some degree. But I fail to understand what that has to do with this.
The “corporate form” is by definition a structure which limits liability and responsibility of individuals acting collectively. Thomas believes, as others here apparently agree, that corporations equal Person, Citizen, Resident or We the People in some bazarre interpretation of the Articles. The 1st Amendment can be twisted to fit any number of interpretations if one takes it out of context. If the founders had intended Persons to equal corporations they forgot to mention it in the Articles.
Following Thomas’s leaping logic, might some clever person explain just how a corporate “person” might become eligible to hold the Office of President. (Article 2, Sec. 1).
One thing I have seen no one address is the fact that so many of our news outlets are corporations.
Oh, too, how about limited liability companies? Partnerships? Joint ventures? Associations? Trusts? Are they all to be excluded from the process as well?
Ladybug, ALL citizens are people and are persons. ALL persons are not people. ALL people are not citizens. The least rights are held by mere persons. The most rights are held by citizens. For example, only native born citizens may become President. However, there are basic rights held by all persons both under our constitution and by federal statute.
Once again Justice Thomas lays out a logical conclusion in simple term for all to understand.
And once again, this is somehow evidence of his ignorance, or worse a “puposely misleading” argument.
Has reason abandoned us completely in our time of confusion?
The law that allows groups of people to be muzzled because of some business classification are the same laws that can be used to muzzle all of us. You can not grant such authority to govt and expect it to not be used against anyone govt chooses as its enemy of the month.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. How freakin complicated is that?
Exactly JAC. And to those appearing to disparage the intellect of Justice Thomas, they can certainly feel smug to be associated with such luminaries of Constitutional analysis as Harry Reid, Joe Biden and quite a few other idiots. Their attacks are based solely on his affiliation with Republicans, not actually on his ability.
Well, JAC, tell me then, just when does a coporation NOT become elgible to influence our elections. You see, most people in this country understand instinctively that this is a very bad decision for them. Of course, they like myself, are not well-versed in esoteric legal language to argue its merits with legalese. Intead, we argue with something the Republican Party has alluded to time and again and being even more important than legalese. Common sense! (or Bush’s favorite, our guts)
But once again, JAC, give me a percentage. Say a multinational corporation consists of say fifty percent American investors. Is that OK? Or how about a corporation made up of seventy percent foreign investors? Still OK. Or mabye even a corporation made up of ninety-FIVE percent Chinese and Saudis with a few token Americans? Is that still good enough? In other words, JAC, how do YOU define a corporation’s “right” to influence OUR electoral process here in the United States? Is there really NO percentage at which a corporation’s right to influence is dimished? It seems not.
These are questions that demand an answer. One of the most offensive, repulsive, objectionable aspects of this ruling, besides the obivous lack of any corporate liability in an individual sense, is the fact that now, decisions that should be made ENTIRELY by the American people, will now be greatly influenced by out-of-country interests! And only the most naive would argue that the interests of the Saudis and the Chinese are the same as ours, or that these folks have America’s best interests at heart.
Try as I may and simply to play the devil’s advocate, I would be terribly hardpressed to even devise a strategy by which to defend the Citizens’ United decision, for it’s fundamentally so flawed and unAmerican as to defy any attempt at defense. But please don’t take my word for it. Simply read the comments.
And this is why Thomas’s defense is laughable. It answers nothing.
JAC
….all make no law abridging the freedom of speech…
Freedom of speech is a human right.
Animals do not have this right.
Plants do not have this right.
Aliens from Mars do not have this right.
Fictitious evil ghosts do not have this right. But by force, government will beat up anyone would does not give ghosts rights.
JoeBlow, tell me. Does this mean that Al Jazeera English should not be allowed to broadcast anywhere within the US?
Dave – I was just musing on your affirmation that this is a good and solid decision based on … nothing. An existentialist in counting to ten cannot get form zero to one, so he AFFIRMS one with great vigor and moves on. Having nothing in the C/U debate to make your case, you have simply been AFFIRMING that it is the right call.
Gregg- the matter of media corporations has been dealt with repeatedly. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, so that anyone operating a media outlet, whether a person, partnership, corporation, LLC or coven is protected.
And it’s odd, Gregg, that it has never been a problem before this odd, odd decision.
Wasn’t Citizen’s United about a movie?
Yes – a hit piece on Hillary Clinton. The Supremes used the opportunity to do a huge reach and undo settled law. Judicial activism, I think it is called, legislating from the bench. When right wing judges do it, it’s OK?
Is that what an existentialist is? And to think I wasted all of that time reading Kierkegaard and Sartre.
I think Mark is confusing existentialism with nihilism.
There you’re messing with freedom of the press, not freedom of speech (with money defined as speech. Bit of a stickier wicket.
(OT) Take the test. http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/
I got 11 out of 12. Have fun.
Interesting quiz, much more so than the comments above. 12 out of 12, not bragging, just read to damn much I guess.
oops, too not to – LOL
Black Flag
Speech is a human right.
The Corporation is a group of people. You can’t turn it into a ghost or some other rhetorical entity. It is simply a group of people comprised of owners, managers and directors. This group can SPEEK out in the groups opinions about what ever the hell the group agrees to.
No law abridging the freedom of speech.
It did not say no law EXCEPT.
You want the Constitution changes then fine. But don’t place fallaceous arguements against this ruling because you don’t like the one that exists.
You are creating contradicitions in your prior positions by the way. Rights do not come from the Constitution. The document simply imposes constraints upon govt. Congress shall make no law……………Pretty damn plane and simple constraint as I see it.
You can not argue against this ruling based on a relativistic postion on corporations versus some other form of group. Especially when neither the document nor the ruling convey “personhood” or anything like it on the corporate entity itself. The govt created type of association has certain protections afforded by govt. But that does not negate the rights of association and speech of those who wish to speek as an entity.
If anyone has problems with corporate donations they need to take it up with the owners and the Directors. Wouldn’t that be the free market, non aggressive solution.
Mark T:
So the constitution assures freedom of the PRESS.
But not a Corporation because it is NOT a person. Right?
Please show me the Person named Press. I would like to visit his house to discuss this matter.
JAC,
Speech is a human right. You have to be human to have a human right.
A Corporation is not JUST a group of people. It is a LEGAL entity that has a government-right that real people do not have!
We are not taking about an association or community. If you join your neighbor, pool your cash and make your statements – no one has the right to stop you. But just the same, if in this association you cause harm – ALL OF YOU ARE LIABLE. There is no escape, but responsibility. Therefore, you will be very cautious in attaching your name and liability to imprudent associations.
The Corporation can be used to act in a manner that real humans could not do – and if the consequence of such action is negative – the Corporation suffers the consequences.
But the Corporation is a ghost. It cannot suffer consequences, only real people suffer consequences.
The Corporation shields the ACTORS from negative consequences while offering ALL THE GAINS to such actors. The negative consequences must be borne by someone real somewhere.
IF the actors can deflect such negative consequences away from them, it MUST land somewhere else. It therefore MUST fall on those whose ACTIONS did NOT create the consequence! It must fall on the innocent.
Rights do not come from the Constitution and nor law.
But how can you claim a LAW which creates an artificial person must have rights??? If a law cannot grant rights, where did a Corporation – an entity wholly created by law – get rights? It can only get them from its creator – the Law – but we agree the Law cannot grant rights!
Corporations are not a ‘right of association’. A Corporation is a legal person. A person does not associate with itself – that is logically redundant and pointless.
” Wouldn’t that be the free market, non aggressive solution.”
No. The free market does not recognize rights of ghosts. It recognizes rights of humans. In a free market, a man who acts, creates consequences – is responsible for those consequences – good or bad. He reaps what he sows. He cannot just reap the good, but pass the blight to his neighbor.
BF”
A corporation is an organization of people. You can not escape that reality no matter how hard your try to ignore it.
And exactly what is it a corporation can do that others can not? It is nothing more than a form of organization, sanctioned/created, by govt . But it is just like all other organizations. Its form has “priveledges” not rights. But it matters not.
People have the right to associate. They can form a business relationship. They can form a partnership, LLC, LLP or Corporation depending on what their goals are. As a group doing business they have the right to speek as they see fit to protect their interest. Who are you to say that because they chose one form of govt created structure over another they are not to have that right to speek as a group?
The right does not go to the ghost entity. That was Thomas’ point. It goes to the people who make up the company.
By the way, cities and towns are corporations.
So is the Sierra Club, Green Peace, the church down the street and the rape prevention center across town and the childcare center next door. The Chamber of Commerce, the Kiwanis, the Lions and the hundreds of non profit veterans organizations and thousands of other community activist groups.
What about LLC’s? Another govt created organizational classification made up of people… A structure that affords certain “priveledges”to its members that others do not have. The same can be said of a partnership, a trust or any other type of organization you choose.
You can scream that a corp is a ghost all you want. It doesn’t change the sound logic of the ruling. If a Constitution is to stand it must be read for its plain meaning. Seems to me you have argued against the liberal court interpretations on other articles. Yet now you want to find ambiguity and nuance in a simple constraint placed upon the federal congress.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Like I said. Attack the issue of corporate status if you want but this is not the place.
JAC
A corporation is an artificial person – and no matter how hard you want to ignore it, that is what it is.
Its structure is specific and purposeful. If it was JUST people, its articulation in LAW would be unnecessary.
Yet, there it is – fully articulated in law. Therefore there was a purpose – and it had nothing to do with it merely being “a group of people”.
And exactly what is it a corporation can do that others can not?
What it can do is create a series of legal circumstances that allow the actors the ability to avoid responsibility for negative outcomes.
It is not like any other form of organization under law or outside of law – or else it would be unnecessary – another form would have already accomplished such purpose. But no other form of organization accomplishes such purpose – hence, “Corporation”.
People have the right to associate. They can form a business relationship. They can form any organization they wish, to share effort, expenses and profit….. and risk and loss! Reap what you sow.
But that is not a corporation’s purpose. This is not a right – it is not a right to pass loss from those that cause to those that did not. This is an act enforced by law – by violence – inflicted on innocent people.
There is no right to inflict harm upon innocent people. Thus, the entity which acts in this manner is NOT rightful. To declare such an entity to have RIGHTS which violates RIGHTS is a contradiction. And since this entity is not human, but contrived, it is in the contriving that such evil is created.
Further, this entity cannot be reformed – or else it would not be a “Corporation”. It would be something else – like you suggested – a partnership or some such human organization.
To then suggest, with all of this contradiction, supra-right by force, and ghostly existence – it now has HUMAN rights is an insult.
And, as a group OF PEOPLE doing business they have the right to speak as they see fit to protect their interest. I do not question this.
But that is not what is done. When a group of people, doing business, speak to protect their interest – it is because the consequences of their action and of others actions upon them is borne by human beings who are the direct actors of such enterprise.
But this is NOT the case for a corporation. The actors do not bear the NEGATIVE consequences of such actions. Thus, they are immune to imprudent support of initiatives, immune to imprudent words spoken, immune to imprudent decisions.
If liable for such imprudence – such action would not be taken, such words not spoken and different decision would be made.
Freedom demands responsibility!
If you demand a freedom, you must accept the consequences – good and bad as it may come.
A Corporation violates this natural law. You wish to offer it the Freedom, but its construction allows the avoidance of responsibility and that avoidance is protected by legal violence – the power of government. Thus, it will pervert the freedom to evil ends, which in the end destroys freedom of others.
You ask who am I to say that because some actors chose one form of govt created structure over another they do not to have a right to speak as a group?
I say no form of government creation of artificial humans has any right to speak, regardless of its legal construction, if that construction exists to avoid responsibility. How can one speak if one is not responsible for one’s words?
“That was Thomas’ point. It goes to the people who make up the company.”
Then those people can speak, for themselves – and suffer the consequences themselves. But invoking an entity that makes them immune to those consequences completely prevents the natural law from being effective.
Without consequence, there is no fear of imprudent behavior – thus, calls for imprudent action suffer no consequence upon the actor – though may cause deep suffering upon the innocent.
With no recourse, who do the innocent demand their redress? All that is presented to them is a ghost.
This is not a consequence of freedom – this is a consequence of coercion.
Whether cities, towns, States and Government – which all exist as corporations – do so for the very reason Corporations exist. The actors – the politicians – remove themselves from the consequences of their imprudent behavior – the “Office” takes the blame – the human walks away unscathed.
Thus, a man with a badge can essentially kill without consequence – because his “office” suffers the consequence. The human man walks away unmolested – yet it was the human who pulled the trigger, not an “office” or a “title” or a “corporation”. Great evil done – without the actor doing the evil having any fear of the severity of the consequence.
Whereas you, as a human – would suffer devastating and permanent consequences if you made precisely the same decisions. This is wholly contrary to freedom and human rights.
The list of organizations do not carry a greater argument. No more than a million hands waving in the air agreeing to violate my rights is more rightful than just one.
You also know appeals to the Constitution – a piece of paper with words written by smelly men with bad hair a few hundred years ago carries with me as much weight as words written on a piece of paper by a man in an insane asylum.
The words written on paper by other men do not bind me.
The attack on free speech comes from allowing evil ghosts such a right. It is an insult to real human beings that a ghost – devoid of responsibility of whatever may be said – claims a right of a real man who must carry the full responsibility for whatever he may say.
Wow. Black Flag, with all due respect, that’s quite a pile. Let’s all remember that just saying something on a blog doesn’t make it true, or right
In fact, you are probably jointly and severally liable. In other words, if you own your house and your neighbor doesn’t, you assume all the liability (with a worthless right of contribution against your neighbor). Would that chill or encourage participation in the political process?
False. First, I don’t even understand the whole “ghost” thing. It’s kind of silly.
And a corporation can suffer consequences, consequences that may or may not implicate the investments of its owners.
False. An individual can be held liable for illegal activities whether or not the individual is acting as an agent for another entity.
I don’t even understand this one.
False. Actors do not “avoid responsibility for negative outcomes.” All a corporate entity does is provide that, in most circumstances, its investors risk of loss is limited to the amount invested in the company.
There are, in fact, other organizations that accomplish the same purpose. Think “limited liability company,” or “limited liability partnership.”
Mr. Smith ,
Thanks for the update – but I didn’t hold this expectation. This is a dialogue – a sharing of opinion and knowledge.
Hope we are on the same blog page now.
That is what I meant – those that share the profits, share the risk.
However, you are using a logic fallacy – that the subjective labeling of a consequence as being either “good” or “bad” makes the argument “true” or “false”.
The truth is the truth – whether it is good or bad for you.
Whether it chills or encourages anything is moot – what matters is if it is a ‘truth’ or not.
But creating an artificial person doesn’t tickle you at all! Very bizarre.
That is my point, Mr. Smith.
The corporation – a figment of your imagination (hence the ghost reference) exists to absorb the negative consequences of the decisions made by real people.
A person investing has no upper limit to their return – $1 could return $1 million or more – theoretically to infinity.
However, they have a fixed limit to their loss – merely what they commit initially – $1.
As such, the tendency will be to use this vehicle to engage in risky, imprudent and immoral decisions – where such decisions would be avoided if the risk of the negative consequences was borne by actors themselves.
Mr Smith – your claim of “False” is, well, false.
Selecting one small example – an example that was not even specifically offered in my statement – does not falsify my statement.
By your retort, you disclaim the entire reason for corporations – mitigation and avoidance of negative consequences.
Simply selecting ONE negative consequence that MAY (note that word “may”- many illegal acts on behalf of corporations still just punish the corporations, not the human being, or – as often – the consequence upon the actor is MITIGATED – that is, the human does not bear the burnt of the FULL consequence of their action – such as a receiving merely a letter of reprimand) be applied directly to the actor DOES NOT DISPUTE the reason corporations exist.
Allow me to explain it to you.
Consequences are a zero-sum game.
If I steal from you, what I gain from you is what you lost – 1 to 1.
You seek to recover your loss from me and I pay, I lose what I gained, and you gain what you lost – 1 to 1.
If you seek remedy from me, but I mitigate that by using a ‘ghost’, where does that remedy get resolved?
Either it does not – and you – the harmed, suffer all of the loss.
Or
It gets transferred somewhere else.
But where? It has to go somewhere, and since it is not going to be borne by me – the actor – (by deflection), nor you – the victim- (as you are seeking the remedy) – it is going onto another REAL person who was not at all involved in this circumstance – that defines “innocent”.
Somebody has to absorb the loss – and if it is neither you, the victim , nor me the actor – it must be someone innocent.
Applying harm – because that is what happened, right? – upon innocent people is an act of evil.
Mr. Smith, you are incomplete.
A Corporation has “officers” – humans who act on behalf of this artificial person – since artificial people have no brain of their own.
These ‘officers’ are protected by the structure of the Corporation in a manner that their personal assets are unattainable for the debts of the Corporation.
These ‘officers’ therefore make decisions that risk nothing ( or little ) of their own person.
They accomplish a DIFFERENT purpose – or else a Corporate structure would be redundant.
They may SHARE some aspects – but they are different, right Mr. Smith?
The corporation – in its essence – remains untouched. It is a purposeful vehicle, right? You don’t believe it was created by accident, true?
The purpose of its existence is to mitigate or remove negative consequences away from those that make the decisions on its behalf.
In this, there is no argument.
JAC,
Further to our discussion….
The other point I was making was that a Corporation is a creation by law.
The law is being asked to create human rights for another act of law.
But we agreed, the law cannot create human rights.
Yet, you are arguing that the law can create human rights in this circumstance upon an act of law.
Contradiction.
The serious risk: The arguments of freedom rise from the natural right of all men to be free.
To agree that government law can give human rights cracks the argument that human rights are inherent to humans.
This risks the argument that human rights are actually a grant by government, and as such, can be taken by government.
Do you wish to risk such an argument?
BF
You are completely twisting the argument.
I make no claims as you propose.
My claim is quite simple. A group of people in a truck is a group of people. A group of people in a car is a group of people.
A group doing business as a partnership is a group of people. So is a group doing business as a corporation.
The law does not require the giving of rights to the corp. The ruling in fact confirms that Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech of people, regardless of the nature of the organization to which they belong.
The fact that govt conveys certain priveleges to corps is irrelevant to the issue that people make up a corporation.
You want the corp to be something in itself. It is not. Take away all the people and what do you have? A true ghost, a nothing.
There are no contradictions in my argument. You are trying to create them from a fallacy in your reasoning. That and presenting my position as something it is not. For example I have not once here claimed that this ruling conveys “rights” upon the corporation. Corporate law in fact conveys priveleges upon those “owners” of such a category of business entity.
The veil of protection provided by govt is a separate issue from the right of those within the company to speak on their collective positions.
Once again, if you want the priveleges of corp status removed then adjust the laws to do so, or eliminate the category or the protections you feel are immoral.
I make none of the arguments you claim and do not present a contradiction. You have constructed all of that by changing the base premise to fit your opinion. It is illogical.
JAC
But that is not your claim.
Your claim is that the TRUCK has rights. It matters not – in law – whether the TRUCK has 1 person or 1 million persons – the TRUCK has the rights.
And I do not agree – for reasons are outlined above – perversity in granting a non-human thing human rights – and the avoidance of responsibility by grant of government force (law)
The fact, JAC is that it IS something in itself. Take away the people and it still exists – it is in stasis, but it exists none the less.
Thousands sit on the shelves of business lawyers all over the world – patiently waiting for a brain – but they exist none the less.
Your argument rests on an abstraction that DOES NOT represent Corporations as outlined inside government law.
You want a partnership or sole proprietorship to be the same as a government-created artificial human.
You refuse to recognize the legal standing of what you argue for – the legal existence of artificial persons.
From a similar debate at Reason.Com
Patriot Henry|2.5.10 @ 5:55PM|#
“Because they got together and formed a “corporation” to finance it.”
They formed a “State permitted collective”. The State owns all such collectives. It decides how much of the collective’s earnings to take or not to take. It decides how often and how such collectives shall do a great many things, such as having meetings and keeping notes on meetings amongst a wide variety of such State mandated duties.
The State can and has now again decided which natural rights such collectives may assume. The greater the expansion of natural rights of collectives the greater the restriction of the natural rights of individuals. The State permitted collectives shall now grow more powerful and influential over the State.
The solution isn’t to restrict the speech of such collectives – it’s to eliminate them entirely.
The State doesn’t gain ownership by permiting the existance of corporations. If that were true, the State would own (and therefore) control religions and religious expression because it allows for it in the Bill of Rights. The same argument could be be made for the control of the press, peaceful assembly etc. The tyranny you propose is what the founders of this country sought to escape, not embrace.
What Henry demonstrates is that the Corporation is wholly beholden to the State for its existence – as such, the ‘ultimate’ owner.
I do not see an equivalence between Corporations and religion as you infer in your statement.
Religion was the State 1,000 years ago – it is a State in other parts of the world, but I do not see an overriding religious State in America – though it is a tremendous and dominating influence.
The argument of State control and other human rights is lost on me. I do not see the connection between a government created artificial person and ‘peaceful assembly’.
Lastly, whether the intention was to avoid such tyranny or not – this is the tyranny we have.
Dave – I was just commenting on the fact that you’ve got nothing to support this nutso decision, and so have only AFFIRMED that it is right. Call it what you want – I was just having some fun with an old professor who was having fun. Wulfgar is, as usually, full of not just shit, but sweet-smelling shit.
Gregg – we have well over a hundred years of media corporations protected because they operate under the first amendment. There was no threat or injustice. No corporations was prevented from starting a newspaper or TV network. That is sophistry.
Here’s something overlooked: The odds are that ExxonMobil is comprised of people of different voices, but when “ExxonMobil” decides now to take down a candidate or office holder with a propaganda campaign, is that ExxonMobil speaking, its stockholders, or the board of directors or Exxon, the high office holders of Exxon? There’s no one voice there. This ruling is absurd.
And Dave, you know it. You f****** know it. Your behvior is interesting.
What rot. The nonsense spewed would certainly be banned by the EPA if it made its way out of the blogosphere. Money does not buy votes. See for example Steve Forbes, and other millionaires who failed to achieve an office that they aspired to. Second, advertising does not have the magical power that Mark assigns to it. For example, just try and buy a 2010 Edsel, or for that matter, any number of products that have been rejected by the public.
Lastly, are you really all so certain that our democratic republic is so weak that it can be easily swayed simply by throwing money around? Your lack of faith is the foundation of your undoing.
Steve,
Do not confuse the Forbes mere millions to the power of influence of money via lobbyists etc.
Further, you misunderstood the goals as well.
Forbes wanted to be President.
Money wants (or wants to crush) legislation. It is here the real power of money is exercised upon the political machine.
For me, I do not see the Republic as weak at all. I see the Republic as perverted from birth. It is precisely what it is – a corrupt, tyrannical institution that monopolizes violence upon the non-violent. It is a tool much sought by men who believe their ideas are so good, that they should be shoved down the throats of other men at a point of gun.
I totally DISAGREE with the U.S. Supreme Court on their recent holding regarding corporations. U.S. corporations need to be held accountable for what they have done to our economy. If you are a U.S. corporation and you move your headquarters off shore to avoid taxes or your workforce to India or Singapore, I think it should lose its U.S. corporate status, a corporation that does these things should be dissolved under U.S. law.
His statement is good in theory – a corporation is a group of beneficial owners. One could argue that this group should be able to speak its mind and act in its own best interest. However, in the real world, a corporation does not represent its owners as effectively as the smaller groups that Justice Thomas referenced. A major cause for this is the inefficient corporate proxy voting system. As many, many, many people have reminded us, it does not facilitate the feedback loop from beneficial owners that is necessary for successful corporate governance. These problems do not exist with groups of 10.