Are Corporations People?

Well I have come to the thought: are corporations/ assemblies people? Should they be entitled to the same rights as a person, or should assemblies of people have some limited rights because the assembly is not a person itself and is unfair? Should assemblies have some limit and regulation to protect the people from harm?

Well they aren't people in the strict sense of course. But they are just an assembly of people that group their money into an organization whether it be profit or non-profit organization.

And If a single individual can have a voice, then why can't an organization have a voice as well?

At 2/10/2012 8:06:29 PM, Contra wrote:
Well I have come to the thought: are corporations/ assemblies people? Should they be entitled to the same rights as a person, or should assemblies of people have some limited rights because the assembly is not a person itself and is unfair? Should assemblies have some limit and regulation to protect the people from harm?

No, they are legal entities that are owned by people (a.k.a. the shareholders). However, there is no reason to believe that the rights of corporations should be more restricted than the rights of individuals. Corporations are just collections of individuals pooling their resources together.

At 2/10/2012 8:16:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well they aren't people in the strict sense of course. But they are just an assembly of people that group their money into an organization whether it be profit or non-profit organization.

And If a single individual can have a voice, then why can't an organization have a voice as well?

There is the obvious concern that granting corporations rights is unfair because it gives groups an extra advantage over an equal number of unincorporated individuals. For example, if a corporation has 500 members, they can make 500 contributions to a candidate and also another contribution as the corporation. 500 individuals can make 500 contributions, but they do not get that extra corporate contribution. To use an analogy, imagine a store is having a special in which each person gets a free item (like a small ice cream cone). If three individuals go to the store, they each get the item. But, if there are three people who form a corporation, they would get three items plus a fourth for the corporate person. That seems rather unfair. As such, taking corporations as people seems to be a system of miraculous multiplication-it creates extra super-people out of a collection of normal people. This seems both questionable and unfair.

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com...

There is the obvious concern that granting corporations rights is unfair because it gives groups an extra advantage over an equal number of unincorporated individuals. For example, if a corporation has 500 members, they can make 500 contributions to a candidate and also another contribution as the corporation. 500 individuals can make 500 contributions, but they do not get that extra corporate contribution. To use an analogy, imagine a store is having a special in which each person gets a free item (like a small ice cream cone). If three individuals go to the store, they each get the item. But, if there are three people who form a corporation, they would get three items plus a fourth for the corporate person. That seems rather unfair. As such, taking corporations as people seems to be a system of miraculous multiplication-it creates extra super-people out of a collection of normal people. This seems both questionable and unfair.:

Corporations are treated by law as individuals but with more restrictions.

Secondly, even if they "got a 4th ice cream cone" (stupid analogy, btw) who gives a sh*t??? Maybe I'm not understanding the atrocity in your complaint... but my understanding of it sounds really petty and inconsequential. Perhaps you can expound on why this is supposedly "unfair."

There's two separate sources of revenue that the individuals are drawing from. If three people who work for the same company want to donate money to some group they support, they can do that from their own bank account. Let's say the 3 men happen to be Chairman of that company. They can additionally draw funds from their own corporation to donate if they'd like.

In what alternate universe do you live where you think you can tell people how to run their lives or their businesses?

At 2/10/2012 8:41:09 PM, Contra wrote:
There is the obvious concern that granting corporations rights is unfair because it gives groups an extra advantage over an equal number of unincorporated individuals. For example, if a corporation has 500 members, they can make 500 contributions to a candidate and also another contribution as the corporation. 500 individuals can make 500 contributions, but they do not get that extra corporate contribution.

No, that's not it. According to the Federal Election Commisiion website http://www.fec.gov... :

"The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:

Corporations;
Labor organizations;
Federal government contractors; and
Foreign nationals.
...

Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in connection with federal elections.

An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign. "

So corporations and labor unions cannot give any money to candidates, but corporations, labor unions, and individuals can each give unlimited amounts to Political Action Committees who try to get candidates elected. Why is there a "loophole" that allows unlimited contributions? Blame it on the Supreme Court upholding the First Amendment right of free speech. Liberals and conservatives on the Court are in substantial agreement on this right. The right to advocate a position cannot be limited.

At 2/10/2012 9:14:25 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

There is the obvious concern that granting corporations rights is unfair because it gives groups an extra advantage over an equal number of unincorporated individuals. For example, if a corporation has 500 members, they can make 500 contributions to a candidate and also another contribution as the corporation. 500 individuals can make 500 contributions, but they do not get that extra corporate contribution. To use an analogy, imagine a store is having a special in which each person gets a free item (like a small ice cream cone). If three individuals go to the store, they each get the item. But, if there are three people who form a corporation, they would get three items plus a fourth for the corporate person. That seems rather unfair. As such, taking corporations as people seems to be a system of miraculous multiplication-it creates extra super-people out of a collection of normal people. This seems both questionable and unfair.:

Corporations are treated by law as individuals but with more restrictions.

Secondly, even if they "got a 4th ice cream cone" (stupid analogy, btw) who gives a sh*t??? Maybe I'm not understanding the atrocity in your complaint... but my understanding of it sounds really petty and inconsequential. Perhaps you can expound on why this is supposedly "unfair."

There's two separate sources of revenue that the individuals are drawing from. If three people who work for the same company want to donate money to some group they support, they can do that from their own bank account. Let's say the 3 men happen to be Chairman of that company. They can additionally draw funds from their own corporation to donate if they'd like.

In what alternate universe do you live where you think you can tell people how to run their lives or their businesses?

+1

Also, corporate income is taxed twice, in the form of income taxes for the corporation and the taxation of paid dividends.

About the analogy; I did not make it up. Plus, there are not "petty" results from "free and unrestricted" financing of campaigns. With unlimited financing allowed, a plutocracy of a few rich organizations could fund a campaign devoted to the plutocratic interest, instead of the public interest, which is why we have elections.

Politicians are supposed to represent us all. However, I have two main reasons why campaigns with unlimited campaign finance is a bad policy:

1) Diluting the Public Interest

Imagine that Newt Gingrich was selected as the GOP nominee. He is for very low taxes for corporations especially compared to now, and Newt also favors abolishing the capital gains/ dividends tax. These are two pillars of arch-conservative thought. The corporate profits for the USA were over $1.6 trillion recently. Since Newt would almost certainly be a "god" to them compared to Obama, corporations could give all they wanted to Newt's campaign, because they would see it as an investment. Even if corporations spent just 1% of their profits on Newt, just 1%, they would outspend Obama's 2008 amount by over 22 times. It is corrupt to think that a private interest should rule a nation instead of the national interest, aka common good.

2) Bribery

When an organization can give almost unlimited amounts to campaigns, it is similar to bribery. If you consider spending speech, then you consider it perfectly acceptable to speak to politicians. Whoever, if spending is speech, instead of a form of exchange, then a corporation could speak to politicians by speaking to them by money. This is bribery.

Bribery: Money or favor given in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.

Spending as free speech would find bribery acceptable. This is violating the values of equality and fairness. You may counter that spending by corporations is not making politicians follow a promise. However, it would be extremely naive to believe that campaign financing is not intended to do just that-namely to influence behavior by providing money and support.

Worst case scenario: Spending money is seen as free speech. This doesn't mean it should be without limits. This is similar to yelling "fire" in a theater, yelling fire is seriously disrupting to a theater. Spending unlimited amounts is seriously disrupting to a nation's political system as I have shown. It makes the representation of corporations, whom is not a person, but is just an entity, much higher than average person.

To use an analogy, it is on par with having a public discussion in which the people controlling corporations are allowed to use sound systems up on the stage and individuals are expected to try to shout out their views from the crowd.

At 2/10/2012 8:06:29 PM, Contra wrote:
Well I have come to the thought: are corporations/ assemblies people? Should they be entitled to the same rights as a person, or should assemblies of people have some limited rights because the assembly is not a person itself and is unfair? Should assemblies have some limit and regulation to protect the people from harm?

The obvious limitation is that corporations do not have the right to vote. They also cannot marry, adopt children, receive Social Security, get a passport or do any of dozens of other things that individuals do. Corporations can do only the things specifically authorized by the corporate charter and by the state where the company is incorporated. Profit-making corporation are authorized by their owners to conduct financial transactions to make money, but non-profits act for individuals to accomplish charitable ends. Corporations are no more than collectives organized under standard rules to accomplish the limited purposes allowed by the owners.

Only liberals live under the delusion that corporations are independent living beings.

So corporations and labor unions cannot give any money to candidates, but corporations, labor unions, and individuals can each give unlimited amounts to Political Action Committees who try to get candidates elected. Why is there a "loophole" that allows unlimited contributions? Blame it on the Supreme Court upholding the First Amendment right of free speech. Liberals and conservatives on the Court are in substantial agreement on this right. The right to advocate a position cannot be limited.

This loophole is not good either. With limited spending on campaigns, aka campaign finance reform, contributions would be limited, and PACs would become useless besides organizing a campaign, because 4 $20 contributions = $80 to campaign, the same as 4 $20 contributions to PAC then to Campaign.

I showed how on the last post that no limits on campaign finance is bribery, unfair, not equal, and is undemocratic. If you reactionaries believe that going back to a plutocratic paradise, in which the right of free speech definition was warped incorrectly so that rich organizations can rule instead of people in an unequal, unjust, and unfair way in a skewed democracy, I seriously ask two questions:

1) Do you believe in popular sovereignty and democracy?
2) [if yes to last question,] Are you people mentally sane?

Also, corporate income is taxed twice, in the form of income taxes for the corporation and the taxation of paid dividends.

Okay, but this is justified. Income taxes should be equal to dividend/ capital gains taxes. This isn't just my view, it is also Ronald Reagan's view too. (Face!)

The obvious limitation is that corporations do not have the right to vote. They also cannot marry, adopt children, receive Social Security, get a passport or do any of dozens of other things that individuals do. Corporations can do only the things specifically authorized by the corporate charter and by the state where the company is incorporated. Profit-making corporation are authorized by their owners to conduct financial transactions to make money, but non-profits act for individuals to accomplish charitable ends. Corporations are no more than collectives organized under standard rules to accomplish the limited purposes allowed by the owners.

Only liberals live under the delusion that corporations are independent living beings.

Wow, we actually agree on this definition. However, it is not just corporations, but organizations in general. Campaign Finance Reform is justified and the right way for society. However, liberals are not under the delusion that corporations are people, are you serious?

At 2/10/2012 9:37:31 PM, Contra wrote:
About the analogy; I did not make it up. Plus, there are not "petty" results from "free and unrestricted" financing of campaigns. With unlimited financing allowed, a plutocracy of a few rich organizations could fund a campaign devoted to the plutocratic interest, instead of the public interest, which is why we have elections.:

Yeah, I know, it's how all presidents are elected. The only way around it is to pass a Campaign Finance Reform bill that will stick.

Politicians are supposed to represent us all. However, I have two main reasons why campaigns with unlimited campaign finance is a bad policy:

1) Diluting the Public Interest

Imagine that Newt Gingrich was selected as the GOP nominee. He is for very low taxes for corporations especially compared to now, and Newt also favors abolishing the capital gains/ dividends tax. These are two pillars of arch-conservative thought. The corporate profits for the USA were over $1.6 trillion recently. Since Newt would almost certainly be a "god" to them compared to Obama, corporations could give all they wanted to Newt's campaign, because they would see it as an investment. Even if corporations spent just 1% of their profits on Newt, just 1%, they would outspend Obama's 2008 amount by over 22 times. It is corrupt to think that a private interest should rule a nation instead of the national interest, aka common good.:

First of all, I notice you underhandedly demonize Republicans as if Democrats don't do the same exact thing. Unions are notorious liberal haunts that support Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama capitalizes on lobbyist endorsements just as much as the neocons do

http://www.sourcewatch.org...

2) Bribery

When an organization can give almost unlimited amounts to campaigns, it is similar to bribery. If you consider spending speech, then you consider it perfectly acceptable to speak to politicians. Whoever, if spending is speech, instead of a form of exchange, then a corporation could speak to politicians by speaking to them by money. This is bribery.:

Yeah, it's called lobbying. It may not be a popular practice that certainly skirts an ethical boundary, but in the meantime the SCOTUS cannot fundamentally usurp what it deems as free speech.

Worst case scenario: Spending money is seen as free speech. This doesn't mean it should be without limits. This is similar to yelling "fire" in a theater, yelling fire is seriously disrupting to a theater. Spending unlimited amounts is seriously disrupting to a nation's political system as I have shown. It makes the representation of corporations, whom is not a person, but is just an entity, much higher than average person.:

Even supposing that Campaign Finance Reform could be passed, how could anyone practically curb the activity without delving deeply into the private accounts of candidates? All this, mind you, without any probable cause to do so.

To use an analogy, it is on par with having a public discussion in which the people controlling corporations are allowed to use sound systems up on the stage and individuals are expected to try to shout out their views from the crowd.:

Let's use an incredibly wealthy individual who is retired as a for instance. He no longer has any ties to any corporation, and decides to donate a sizeable check to the candidate of his choice from his personal bank account. Is his candidate allowed to accept the donation? If not, then you would have to question the ability to donate to any charity whatsoever on the basis that it's tantamount to a bribe.

There is one way, and only one way to stop government bribery.

Take the power away.

At 2/10/2012 9:57:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
There is one way, and only one way to stop government bribery.

Take the power away.:

Pretty much... I mean, I don't like the thought of political bribes as much as the next guy, but I'd like to see how someone can pragmatically stop it without breaking a litany of laws in the process.

There's always a loophole around it.

First of all, I notice you underhandedly demonize Republicans as if Democrats don't do the same exact thing. Unions are notorious liberal haunts that support Democratic presidential candidates.

Obama capitalizes on lobbyist endorsements just as much as the neocons do

I do realize what I have done. I said on the earlier in this forum that all organizations should have limited rights to spend money on campaigns for politicians. Plus, I disagree with Obama's view on Super PAC's.

Yeah, it's called lobbying. It may not be a popular practice that certainly skirts an ethical boundary, but in the meantime the SCOTUS cannot fundamentally usurp what it deems as free speech.

It is identical to bribery as well, don't ignore this fact. Plus, the Court mis-interpreted the facts of what no campaign finance reform would do to the nation. We all see the Super PAC's all on the news now, a result from Citizens United. Before campaign finance reform in the early 1900s, this was a large problem.

Even supposing that Campaign Finance Reform could be passed, how could anyone practically curb the activity without delving deeply into the private accounts of candidates? All this, mind you, without any probable cause to do so.

I showed how C.F.R. (Campaign Finance Reform) is just. Your point on private accounts is valued though and should be taken into thought. That is why I support public financing of elections, so corruption would be limited.

Let's use an incredibly wealthy individual who is retired as a for instance. He no longer has any ties to any corporation, and decides to donate a sizeable check to the candidate of his choice from his personal bank account. Is his candidate allowed to accept the donation? If not, then you would have to question the ability to donate to any charity whatsoever on the basis that it's tantamount to a bribe.

This is different. Organizations usually have much larger say than would a sole individual. Plus, I am concerned about political campaigns, not in trying to change the opinion of MoveOn by changing their position on Obama (example). Private donations are fine. However, political campaigns that are without limits on funding are dangerous to a nation by eliminating the values of equality, fairness, and the common good inside the category of political campaigns.

Take the power away.

So anarchy. A horrible idea. I am willing to debate on this idea.

If corporations are people then Texas would have executed a few by now....

At 2/10/2012 10:40:25 PM, imabench wrote:
If corporations are people then Texas would have executed a few by now....

Lol

At 2/10/2012 10:40:25 PM, imabench wrote:
If corporations are people then Texas would have executed a few by now....

Like they did with Rockefeller :o

At 2/10/2012 9:50:45 PM, Contra wrote:
Wow, we actually agree on this definition. However, it is not just corporations, but organizations in general. Campaign Finance Reform is justified and the right way for society.

The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, liberals and conservatives alike, that the First Amendment must be repealed or significantly modified to get cgn reform. So are you ready for, "Congress shall have the right to limit the amount and extent of support for candidates and positions." or maybe the Soviet Constitution approach, "Free speech shall be permitted except as restricted by law."

Note that unions have the ability to mobilize labor to man phone banks, and do all the campaign ground work. It doesn't count as a contribution.

However, liberals are not under the delusion that corporations are people, are you serious?

Indeed. Look at how liberals refer to corporations. They rarely say "stockholders" but almost always use language that fits an independent living entity. Here's Obama:

""Businesses have a responsibility, too," said Obama in his weekly address on Saturday. "If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation. That's their obligation."

That's nonsense. People have a perfect right to engage in collective activity that's aimed solely at making money, so long as it's legal, just as people also have a right to act collectively through non-profits to engage entirely in charitable activity. Social responsibility lies with people, not with businesses.

Of course, believing that the future of America depends upon keeping jobs sewing underwear is stupid in the first place. Social responsibility involves not going bankrupt.

At 2/10/2012 9:47:22 PM, Contra wrote:
This loophole is not good either. With limited spending on campaigns, aka campaign finance reform, contributions would be limited, and PACs would become useless besides organizing a campaign, because 4 $20 contributions = $80 to campaign, the same as 4 $20 contributions to PAC then to Campaign.

Tell me exactly how you would modify the Constitution to limit free speech. Surely you could not allow somebody to buy up a chain of newspapers and publish editorials favoring a candidate. That space in the newspaper is extremely valuable, and it would be more valuable with other campaign spending limited. It amounts to a significant campaign contribution. So we'll need a federal agency to monitor and limit what is written, right?

I showed how on the last post that no limits on campaign finance is bribery, unfair, not equal, and is undemocratic.

So you have convinced yourself that free speech is undemocratic. I think free speech works just fine. All sides are able to raise money and to publicize the claimed biases of others. the more passionate people are, the more money they devote to campaigns. That's democratic.

If you reactionaries believe that going back to a plutocratic paradise, in which the right of free speech definition was warped incorrectly so that rich organizations can rule instead of people in an unequal, unjust, and unfair way in a skewed democracy, I seriously ask two questions:

1) Do you believe in popular sovereignty and democracy?

No, I believe in a constitutional Republic with guaranteed rights, including free speech. Keep in mind that the Supreme court does not view the free speech right as doubtful.

2) [if yes to last question,] Are you people mentally sane?

So perhaps you are up for a debate. How would you modify the First Amendment? How would government monitor and enforce limits on campaigning?

The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, liberals and conservatives alike, that the First Amendment must be repealed or significantly modified to get cgn reform. So are you ready for, "Congress shall have the right to limit the amount and extent of support for candidates and positions." or maybe the Soviet Constitution approach, "Free speech shall be permitted except as restricted by law."

Note that unions have the ability to mobilize labor to man phone banks, and do all the campaign ground work. It doesn't count as a contribution.

First off, spending money, even if counted as a part of free speech, should be limited because spending massive amounts of money is dangerous to a nation. Plus, yelling "fire" in a theater is an example of free speech being limited for the common good as well, and we are better because of this.

Plus, organizing a campaign is different from funding it.

That's nonsense. People have a perfect right to engage in collective activity that's aimed solely at making money, so long as it's legal, just as people also have a right to act collectively through non-profits to engage entirely in charitable activity. Social responsibility lies with people, not with businesses.

Of course, believing that the future of America depends upon keeping jobs sewing underwear is stupid in the first place. Social responsibility involves not going bankrupt.

About your first paragraph, I agree with it except that "social responsibility lies with people, not with businesses." You have to remember how you got here. A business got rich because of the taxpaying citizens. Nobody ever gets rich on their own, they utilized taxpayer infrastructure, etc., so before you say the rich don't have an obligation to uphold social responsibility, you need to take this into note. I will debate this if you want.

Plus, social responsibility is different from destroying a company. GM in Flint in the late 1980s and 1990s closed down factories in Flint, even though they were making record profits in the billions, and they were the largest corporation worldwide. They were competitive, and Flint was the town GM was born in. Instead, the GM leaders decided to move to Mexico. This is just corporate terrorism on places like Flint. However, if GM was going bankrupt, I would be fine letting them lay of workers and downsize. However, it is just unjust to almost destroy a city when you are making record profits in the billions of dollars.

Tell me exactly how you would modify the Constitution to limit free speech. Surely you could not allow somebody to buy up a chain of newspapers and publish editorials favoring a candidate. That space in the newspaper is extremely valuable, and it would be more valuable with other campaign spending limited. It amounts to a significant campaign contribution. So we'll need a federal agency to monitor and limit what is written, right?


I wouldn't modify the Constitution. I would just pass a law that bans financial donations to a political campaign beyond the local campaigns, then pass full campaign finance reform by using public financing of elections.

So you have convinced yourself that free speech is undemocratic. I think free speech works just fine. All sides are able to raise money and to publicize the claimed biases of others. the more passionate people are, the more money they devote to campaigns. That's democratic.

Considering unlimited financing of campaigns is not democratic or even free speech. In reality, it is probably contradictory of free speech, because you are limiting the amount of say that average citizens get towards politicians, and large organizations control most of the people's say. This isn't democratic.

So perhaps you are up for a debate. How would you modify the First Amendment? How would government monitor and enforce limits on campaigning?

About limits on campaign financing, I would just use full public financing of elections. About the debate, I would be willing to accept.