What Ruling Was This?

[marksman]

We put these restrictions on churches.

Churches are not-for-profit enterprises. That's why we can restrict a church's free speech. There isn't the same ownership by individuals (who have free speech rights) as others.

You can still individually donate as much as you wish (within campaign finance laws of course). Oops, so if money is speech, then there are restrictions on individual speech. So the whole first amendment argument doesn't make any sense.

I think the whole point of this discussion is that the limits on individuals' ability to speak freely should apply evenly. If corporations are treated like individuals there are no problems. I'm not advocating repeal of campaign finance laws. Someone asked why corporations are entitled to individual rights. So I gave the historical perspective and the rationale behind why corporations are entitled to individual rights.

 

[Almo]

Churches are not-for-profit enterprises. That's why we can restrict a church's free speech. There isn't the same ownership by individuals (who have free speech rights) as others.

What about, for example, a large, privately held corporation such as Cargill? I don't see why not-for-profit should be different than a privately held corp.

 

[marksman]

What about, for example, a large, privately held corporation such as Cargill? I don't see why not-for-profit should be different than a privately held corp.

Non-profits don't have shareholders. A corporation has rights because its shareholders have rights. Non-profits are not owned by anybody, even the people who manage it or who benefit by it. Thus, they don't manifest the rights of their owners because they don't have owners. And for this reason, it is easier to regulate the activities of a non-profit organization than a private company.

One exception is churches. But churches are more difficult to regulate because the Establishment Clause of the Constitution expressly limits the power of the government to establish a church. Since regulating churches could be used to establish a church, the courts have limited the power of the government to regulate churches. However, that's a different rationale (and a different provision of the Constitution) than the one that limits the government's ability to regulate private companies.

 

[psychictv]

Churches are not-for-profit enterprises. That's why we can restrict a church's free speech.

It doesn't matter. The argument you're making is that corporations should have individual rights because they are fundamentally collections of individuals. The same is true of churches. Profit doesn't enter into it one way or the other. If you accept regulation of one group's speech, you should remain open to the possibility of regulating another group's speech. And again, this does not infringe on the speech of the individual since the actions of the group are distinguishable from the actions of the individual members.

Non-profits don't have shareholders. A corporation has rights because its shareholders have rights.

So? Non-profits have boards of directors. Both structures are collections of individuals. If you argue that the rights of the individual transfer onto the group, then your logic should hold for any type of group. I don't see how ownership can enter into it. An individual cannot be bought and sold, so why should an entity that can be bought and sold have more claim to individual rights than an organization with no owners?

 

[marksman]

It doesn't matter. The argument you're making is that corporations should have individual rights because they are fundamentally collections of individuals. The same is true of churches. Profit doesn't enter into it one way or the other.

Profit does not enter into it. Privately owned business are collections of individuals even if they are losing money. But ownership does enter into it. Because a corporation is the manifestation of a contract amongst individuals.

A non-profit is not created by a compact among individuals. It is a legal fiction created by the State with no individual ownership.

the actions of the group are distinguishable from the actions of the individual members.

That is a logical impossibility. A group is not an amorphous entity that exists outside its owners. A corporation acts only through its owners, or the agents of the owners (whose relationship is also defined by contract).

So? Non-profits have boards of directors.

The board of directors has no ownership in the company so the company does not manifest as an extension of the board's individual rights.

If you argue that the rights of the individual transfer onto the group

I'm not arguing anything. I cited the Supreme Court cases that set forth the basis for corporations being deemed to enjoy the Constitutional rights of its owners. I explained the rationale. Do you have anything to indicate I mis-cited these cases?

I don't see how ownership can enter into it.

Please go read the decisions I cited. It's already been explained.

 

[Beerina]

Alright Beerina - let's say that you're a Republican and you're upper-middle management at a company, or say, a large shareholder in the company.

The company decides to use its own funds to fund a book slagging the Republican candidate and promoting the Democratic candidate - wouldn't you feel as if the company resources were misused? That the place you're helping earn a profit (as an employee) or profiting from (as a shareholder) is using those funds to direct "speech" to a place you don't like as an employee/shareholder?

Perhaps I would think it an unwise course of action, but this is the decision of upper management, as hired by the shareholders/board of directors. As such, no, I wouldn't feel it was a misuse of funds. I reject out of hand that this would be done without the implicit approval of shareholders.

One of the modern frauds of politics is trying to define corporations as "non-entities" for the purpose of criticizing government. The only thing worse than company money funding criticism of government is a government authorized to silence same.

Corporation or business = livelihood = survival. Are you feigning outrage that "how dare people trying to survive criticize government when it sticks it's clumsy, politics-driven ham hands into peoples' livelihood!?!??"

No, thank you.



Furthermore, implicit in your suggestion is the two-faced nature of most arguments about these kinds of subjects -- that one could, indeed, should change a position based on "what's in it for me", and be damned any ideas of propriety.

It's a sad world some of you live in. I used to live there, too, up until about age 22 or so, so I know what you're thinking.

 

[INRM]

Psychic TV,

But there is a difference between agreeing that a corporation should be granted some rights, and arguing that a corporation should be granted all of the same rights as an individual.

Agreed


Marksman,

I'm not sure how that's pertinent to our discussion. The fact that minorities have rights the majorty cannot infringe does not mean the minority persecutes the majority.

Because if businesses are considered people their numbers are quite small, but they exert so much power that they are able to influence the government to a level that the majority can't even do.

Thus it would be tantamount to the minority ruling the majority

 

[marksman]

if businesses are considered people

They are not considered people qua people. The are afforded the rights that their owners have. For legal convenience we describe this phenomenon as if they were people.

Corporations are not individuals, even if the law accords them some rights accorded individuals; they are the cooperative efforts of its owners.

 

[psychictv]

the actions of the group are distinguishable from the actions of the individual members.

That is a logical impossibility. A group is not an amorphous entity that exists outside its owners. A corporation acts only through its owners, or the agents of the owners (whose relationship is also defined by contract).

Not a logical impossibility. A corporation can sue me, and I can sue a corporation (and not the individual owners). The corporation is a legal entity independent from its owners and its actions are distinguishable from the actions of the individual (at least from this legal point of view). It outlives the owners and can survive changes in ownership. The corporation's existence independent of the owners is kind of the whole point of a limited liability corporation isn't it?

I'm not arguing anything. I cited the Supreme Court cases that set forth the basis for corporations being deemed to enjoy the Constitutional rights of its owners. I explained the rationale. Do you have anything to indicate I mis-cited these cases?

Yes, I understand that that's the way things are. I just disagree with it.

 

[Travis]

Because if businesses are considered people their numbers are quite small, but they exert so much power that they are able to influence the government to a level that the majority can't even do.

So your solution is to disempower those you think are too powerful? Perhaps I think you are too powerful. Can I disempower you?

Thus it would be tantamount to the minority ruling the majority

No. Protecting the rights of a minority does not mean that minority rules the majority and it certainly does not mean the minority is persecuting the majority.

 

[marksman]

It outlives the owners

It outlives the original owners, who are succeeded by new owners. At all times, the corporation is an extension of its current owners.

The corporation's existence independent of the owners is kind of the whole point of a limited liability corporation isn't it?

Not exactly. The corporation limits the owner's liability, but is at all times an extensionof the owners' collective will.

Yes, I understand that that's the way things are. I just disagree with it.

And I understand that. But I am having simultaneous conversations with you and INRM. So sometimes I'm responding to INRM, explaining to him the concept behind corporate rights and sometimes I am talking to you about why that theory makes sense. Since you respond to my comments to him and he responds to my comments to you, I'm bound to say statements to him that you already understand. Such are the travalils of on-line discussions.

 

[INRM]

Travis,

So your solution is to disempower those you think are too powerful? Perhaps I think you are too powerful. Can I disempower you?

I'm not talking about stripping human beings of their civil rights, I'm talking about restricting the power of a corporate influence in elections so that the people of this country actually have a say when voting.


INRM

 

[Travis]

Travis,



I'm not talking about stripping human beings of their civil rights, I'm talking about restricting the power of a corporate influence in elections so that the people of this country actually have a say when voting.


INRM

So corporations are now run by sentient computers and not "people?" Everything suddenly makes sense!

 

[INRM]

Travis,

So corporations are now run by sentient computers and not "people?" Everything suddenly makes sense!

What? No, companies aren't run by sentient computers (at least no corporation that I know of) -- they're run by a whole bunch of people.

Of course the corporation does not necessarily operate in the interests of all it's employees, as it is, it in theory is supposed to operate solely in the interest of it's shareholders, but in reality it operates for the profit of it's owners or the people at the top who run the company.


INRM