Not really, if you stretch the logic your parents still have their free speech rights, as individuals, but not as Parents ltd. Everyone working for, managing, or owning a company still has his individual free speech as well, of course.
Not really, if you stretch the logic your parents still have their free speech rights, as individuals, but not as Parents ltd. Everyone working for, managing, or owning a company still has his individual free speech as well, of course.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Surely you can see a difference between a corporation which is founded, organized, and run by people, and inanimate objects. Why should an individual have the freedom of speech, but a group of individuals be limited?Originally Posted by Tontoe
Why does it matter how many nations a company operates in? How does that effect the underlying principal that individuals should have the right to organize, and that those organizations should have the right to say, publish, and disseminate information freely?I suspect we're exceeding my deep in legal scholarship, but I also would imagine that the founders did not anticipate multinational corporations funding nationwide campaigns deserved free speech protection. Goldman Sachs did not exist in 1789.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 04-24-2012 at 11:27 PM.
I wouldn't mind an analysis of/commentary on the following letter:
http://www.rense.com/general92/ans.htm
This quote from that letter has been popping up in various discussions about corporations:
Can't help but feel as if something is being lost in "translation" hereIn this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of its government and the probity of its citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of its people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe.
I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Jefferson had a terrible understanding of economics, and had a utopian ideal of the small farmer. He wanted the entire United States to be composed of these small farmers, while destroying the manufacturing and banking sectors.
Hope is the denial of reality
Curious, I hope he's not really Cain's hero as his signature suggests
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't think we are looking at a binary set of options here. A corporation can have the right to speak and spend freely while not defying the laws of a nation, no? It is very much a false dichotomy to say that either corporations are limited in the speech they can use or they will inevitably be at the throat of government.
Of course, the perverse incentives that exist for entities to subvert governments and craft legislation that benefits them is the real issue at hand. The larger and more intrusive the government, the greater the incentive to abuse that authority.
Exactly. Not to mention I'm sure there are things that major corporations have advocated for/against, which people here support.
I'm not drawing a distinction between corporations and groups, I'm drawing a distinction between groups and individuals. Enoch's argument (and feel free to mention if I've mischaracterized it) is that corporations are free associations of individuals. If we would give individuals free speech, then there is not reason why we wouldn't give the same rights to groups of these individuals. I'm saying that this mischaracterizes all but the simplest of groups. Groups, including corporations, create their own dynamic. They are not people in aggregate, but their own beast. Many groups, businesses being the most prominent, do not actually represent individuals in a meaningful way. We can't just scale up individual rights and pretend like that covers all permutations of individuals organizing. Going back to one of my earlier examples, many stock holders are not aware of the political positions of the companies they invest in. Nor, frankly, should they be. Business is a money making enterprise, not a political one, yet the donation made by a corporation is treated as if it were representative of the beliefs of individuals. That's not what businesses are, that's not what they claim to be, but that's how we treat them.
As for your nanny example, I do think you take that too far. I'm not attacking the free speech rights of individuals running businesses, rather the idea that those businesses deserve free speech rights on par with individuals. If the parents want to utilize their free speech as individuals, they are entitled to the fullest protection of the law. If said parents are CEOs will thousands of stockholders and want to claim to represent their political beliefs in aggregate, I am extremely skeptical.
See above re your individual rights = group rights argument.
So, is it fair to say that you're of the opinion that it is perfectly fine for a business to hire an independent lobbyist, pay that lobbyist for their services, and then let that single lobbyist do their dirty work as a free agent that is not necessarily representing the opinions, views, and positions of their employer? This to you seems like a better solution than simply allowing the first amendment to apply to corporations? Or should individuals/corporations have no say in legislation that directly impacts them?
Doesn't this seem like a needlessly complex rule set for an exceedingly simple problem? If you want corporate/union/special interest money out of Washington, limit the impact Washington can have. There is no easier way to get this tainted money out of politics than by tying the hands of politicians.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 04-25-2012 at 03:59 AM.
Oh I see, political speech is OK as long as its not effective. Gotcha. I'm sure that its vital to freedom and democracy to ban effective political speech.
Speech already has legal limits (not inciting riots, liable, slander, truth in advertising, age limits for porn, etc.) that SCOTUS has decided doesn't violate 1st Amendment rights. What I don't like isn't that individuals or corporate interests can funnel millions of dollars toward candidates or lawmakers, but that they can do so without disclosure or transparency via super PACs. The outcome turns our electoral process into an auction to the highest bidders with no upward limits, no checks-and-balances on bundling, bypassing FEC laws everyone else has to follow.
The slogan referenced Citizens United (a court opinion I didn't agree with) and Lewk knew that. News conglomerates have Fourth Estate protections, but they're not exempt from liable or slander charges. Even freedom of the press comes with some legal restrictions, too.
edit: while we're on the freedom of speech angle....churches and religious/faith based groups also have limits on political speech. Sure, they can preach specific politics from the pulpit, endorsing candidates or telling congregants who to vote for --- but they can lose their tax exempt status if they do.
Last edited by GGT; 04-25-2012 at 05:28 AM.
Can't help you much. I don't know the historical context for the letter and Jefferson's always been something of a cipher to me anyway. Between his politicking and pandering *of the prominent "Founding Fathers" he was the closest to the modern politician* and his oratorical flourishes I've always been left at something of a loss.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Allowing corporations to express their views isn't a scaled-up view of free speech to me. I think it's simply an equal application of the principle.
A corporation expresses its views on an issue just as it comes to any other decision. It's not meant to be representative of anyone affiliated with that corporation. It's simply the view the organization has, and it's choosing to make its view known. I don't see how that's any different than me making my view known. I also see this as far more desirable than saying that some entities should have more speech rights than other entities.
What if someone had really awesome charisma and his speech was more effective then other people's. Should we restrict that person's speech because it has unfair impact on elections?
Yeah, another what if....? Again, the distinction I'm making is disclosure/transparency. I don't care if one multi-billionaire wants to use his money-as-speech, to fund a candidate's 'war chest' as political-speech, buy media-as-speech, and try to impact elections. (That's the ultimate goal of all campaigns, their funding and ads.) I do care if it's done in secrecy, using a type of money-laundering to hide its origins, without the ability of voters to know who's behind it.
So you would be OK with spending limitless money as long as its disclosed? Because I actually don't have that big of a problem with. The ability to speak is still preserved. I'd view it as a nuisance law but in the grand scheme of things that isn't nearly as bad.
Nice to see you endorse the decision behind Citizens United. In which the Supreme Court ruled that no one could limit speech as long as the funding sources behind said speech was disclosed.
Seriously, the amount of misconception about Citizens United is absurd. You just summarized the ruling of the case and said you agreed with it, after months of complaining about Citizens United.
Disclosure and transparency, that's what I've been advocating, even in older threads about lobbying and campaign finance.
We've been over this in multiple discussions. The ruling ended up with some creative work-arounds, by either not funding a campaign or candidate "directly" through super PACs or 501-(c)s that do NOT have to disclose funding sources. We know this whole mess began with McCain-Feingold and other attempts to reform campaign financing, putting caps and limits on the money itself. Unfortunately, every attempt at reform has meant big donors finding/creating back doors to get around any donation limits, and even full disclosure.
That sounds good in theory, but that's not how it works in reality. Corporations using money-as-speech IS scaled-up political speech. They not only expect but receive special treatment once their chosen candidate is elected. Whether they do it themselves, use a lobbying group, fund a group like ALEC or a super PAC, they're buying legislative influence.
Even when they're not picking any particular political party or candidate, the largest corporations (and sectors) can buy million$ in advertising, flood air time with expensive ad campaigns that appeal to the consumer, and try to influence their votes. They do it all the time because it works. And everybody knows.
Surely you've noticed the "I'm an Energy Voter" ads promising more jobs, domestic prosperity, cheaper energy, cleaner fuels, etc. sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute? Remember consumer response when Target, Inc. disclosed donations to anti-gay candidates? That kind of transparency and disclosure is the only way individuals and small groups can dissent/boycott/protest, and use their free speech.
It's not a scaled-up application when people can't really choose not to put gas in their car, knowing every tankful helps fund the oil industry's lobbying efforts, and keeps legislators in their pockets. We need to distance our legislators and policy-makers from that kind of "paid constituency", but no one agrees on how.
Before someone blasts me for being anti-business or anti-money....those same complaints apply to unions and large groups like AARP, who also "buy" legislators and influence policy to their favor. Sometimes it starts with gerrymandering, redistricting, or restricting who can vote. Now we've got severely polarized sides who can't manage to compromise or negotiate in order to conduct the nation's business, or state business, and the process itself is all gummed up. No wonder voters are fed up, cynical, and give government officials low approval ratings.
Over the past 48 hours you've made a series of posts that seem to contradict each other in many ways. I'm sorry, but it's really hard to get over post #75, in which you summarize your support of the principles behind the Citizens United vs. FEC ruling while saying that you don't support it.
Dread, you'd have to be living under a rock not to see the negative consequences of Citizen's United: the political groups formed to bypass FEC rules, funneling political money without full disclosures, RNC/DNC and candidates not accountable for any political speech by super PACs or 501-(C)s...because they're "not part of the campaign". It's a crock of bull, and everyone knows.
Transparency shouldn't mean teams of investigative journalists having to match up tax-deductible corporate donations, follow the money trails that move between groups and sub-groups, playing connect-the-dots to learn who's funding the thousands of negative campaign and attack ads. *Surprise! It might be the Koch Brothers using their various subsidiaries, but you'd need a forensic accountant to figure it out.*
It's a new form of legal bundling, hiding under the cloak of Free Speech, that has out-scaled influence over our elections and legislation. Didn't you say you were against anything that unfairly effected the legislation process....especially if one entity had more speech rights than others?I'm pretty sure that if a group like moveon.org or labor unions were using their funding the same anonymous/obfuscated way, you'd be singing a different tune.
And it's surprising that you say:
....since donations to opaque super PACs can mean they don't want to have their views "known" by the general public.It's simply the view the organization has, and it's choosing to make its view known.
Yes, there's a difference between individuals making their views (via donations/contributions) "known", and corporations with huge amounts of money doing the same. Not just because individuals have lower donation caps, but because of the Billions held by Fortune 500 companies and some ~400 private 'entities' that own the largest chunks of national wealth....and political clout. That's what the Occupy and 99% movements were all about.I don't see how that's any different than me making my view known.
I recall a previous debate about political donations, where Loki (and Ghost ? ) were worried about protecting the privacy of individuals, and any coercion or 'punishment' by their employers. Well, that's one reason why Corporations Aren't People -- they don't have the same standard of personal privacy.
A big fan of Peanuts, are ya? It's like Charlie Brown and the football...Curious, I hope he's not really Cain's hero as his signature suggests
What in the hell do smoking weed and covering up sexual assault have to do with the topic at hand?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Their freedom of assembly/speech. And you have the freeedom to mock the protesters and joke about it, as a way to diminish any "legitimacy" of their activism....you're even free to ignore it all, if that's how you roll.
Speaking of Occupy Wall Street --- looks like our illustrious leaders and legislators haven't done such a bang-up job of getting rid of Too Big To Fail, or breaking up the Big Banks into less "systemically important institutions". News today reported that the top six banks now own an even larger proportion of US wealth and GDP than they did before the Financial Crisis. And everyone's probably read about Apple's 9% effective tax rate, using legal loopholes like Double Dutch or Irish Sandwiches (or whatever the hell they're called, by breaking up into several subsidiaries and trading 'intellectual property' overseas....). And we all remember GE's zero federal tax bill after special classifications, subsidies, and reimbursements.
Sounds great for megacorporations to be so clever, maybe return those profits to their shareholders, expand business and hire US workers.....even if it's hiring international tax attorneys or specialized accountants, right? Meanwhile, who's funding our Infrastructure projects, government R & D, national security and military "endeavors", or veterans benefits? The shrinking middle class. How's that Trickle Down theory work again?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote