Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[WildCat]

And the first step toward this would be an Occupy talking point: Clarify the Constitution -- corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

The Constitution is quite clear. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

No, it would not. This is a bogus argument.

It's not a bogus argument. This is how legal personhood originated in common law, predating the existence of the United States.

And if corporations are people, why can't they vote? Why can't they be put in jail? Why can't they be issued a driver license or a passport? Why can't they get married?

It's legal personhood, not actual personhood. Try to understand the difference. It's quite necessary in a modern economy (meaning from the early days of the industrial revolution) for a person or person to create a legal entity which can be a party to contracts while having the same rights and responsibilities of individual persons, with obvious (to most people anyway) limits. A passport? Seriously?

And you do know that the Citizens United ruling had nothing at all to do with legal personhood, don't you? It was about Congress making laws which abridged the freedom of speech in violation of the 1st Amendment. In particular, the law in question abridged political speech, which ought to be the most sacrosanct from government interference.

 

[JihadJane]

I think I've been pretty specific about the wrong lessons these folks learned.

Where?

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, you CAN sue an inanimate object.

It is done all the time.

Court records are full of "State of Indiana vs a fleet of trucks" in asset seizure cases.

 

[WildCat]

Actually, you CAN sue an inanimate object.

It is done all the time.

Court records are full of "State of Indiana vs a fleet of trucks" in asset seizure cases.

If the worst excesses of the idiotic war on drugs are your inspiration you're probably not thinking this through.

 

[BenBurch]

If the worst excesses of the idiotic war on drugs are your inspiration you're probably not thinking this through.

How do you think corporations were sued before that erroneous (literally) decision that granted them personhood?

 

[WildCat]

How do you think corporations were sued before that erroneous (literally) decision that granted them personhood?

What decision that gave them personhood? It's a concept in common law that predates the United States.

 

[Ziggurat]

What decision that gave them personhood? It's a concept in common law that predates the United States.

Not to mention that slaves were persons under the law (in fact, under the constitution), so personhood didn't actually bestow much in the way of rights either.

 

[BenBurch]

There were certain similarities in common law and formal law between how "natural persons" and chartered corporations were dealt with, and the term "artificial person" was used to cover those analogies, but there are several cases in which the courts granted the rights of natural persons to corporations, beginning about the time of the Transcontinental Railroad. Most cases were involving railroads and insurance companies if I recall correctly.

 

[WildCat]

There were certain similarities in common law and formal law between how "natural persons" and chartered corporations were dealt with, and the term "artificial person" was used to cover those analogies, but there are several cases in which the courts granted the rights of natural persons to corporations, beginning about the time of the Transcontinental Railroad. Most cases were involving railroads and insurance companies if I recall correctly.

And?

 

[BenBurch]

And?

And these were Rights that such things should never have, and this has corrupted the political process here.

Not one dime should ever be spent for electoral purposes by a corporation. The individual human beings who are its shareholders already have that right and they should exercise it severally if that is their choice.

This corrupts politics in a way analogous to how the drug laws corrupt law enforcement.

 

[theprestige]

Trouble is that corporations can spend as much as they like in support of a candidate.

So, you think Corporations should be able to spend like drunken sailors but I shouldn't be able to?

Forgive me, but doesn't corporate personhood resolve this conundrum quite easily? Like WildCat said, "Cap campaign donations to $100 per person per candidate per election cycle. Cap party donations to $100 per person per year." [Emphasis mine.]

 

[WildCat]

Not one dime should ever be spent for electoral purposes by a corporation.

So the New York Times should be barred from printing any political editorials or commentaries?

 

[Ziggurat]

So the New York Times should be barred from printing any political editorials or commentaries?

No, of course not. The government should only have the power to ban such speech, but will obviously refrain from exercising that power against something like the New York Times because... well, actually, the government couldn't articulate a reason during Citizens United. So I guess "just because".

The thing that Ben doesn't seem to get is that the first amendment doesn't give people any rights. It restricts the power of government. Not the power of government over individual people only, but the power of government, period.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry if this has been long since discussed since I missed most of this thread (and really don't want to read through it), but Piggy is equivocating with the way he's using "1%" in the OP/thread title. The OWS protesters are certainly not the "1%" in the same way they are using the term.

ETA: And using the definite article suggests that there is only 1% being referred to. It'd be different if you said, "Congrats, Occupiers--you are A 1%". And since this lacks the punch of "the 1%", I hope the equivocation is obvious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Forgive me, but doesn't corporate personhood resolve this conundrum quite easily? Like WildCat said, "Cap campaign donations to $100 per person per candidate per election cycle. Cap party donations to $100 per person per year." [Emphasis mine.]

Ben doesn't like that corporations have free speech of their own. That's what Citizens United was about. It had nothing to do with campaign contributions, but whether or not a corporation could engage in political speech on its own.

 

[AlBell]

I'd say the only way a corporation can 'speak politically' is by buying an advert/etc on some media.

Citizens United affirms their right to do so.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd say the only way a corporation can 'speak politically' is by buying an advert/etc on some media.

No, it's broader than that. The New York Times speaks politically every time they run an op/ed on politics. And they are a corporation.

Citizens United affirms their right to do so.

It did, but they weren't buying an advert, they were screening a movie. But there isn't any fundamental difference between those things, in terms of speech rights.

 

[AlBell]

No, it's broader than that. The New York Times speaks politically every time they run an op/ed on politics. And they are a corporation.

Yup, but there was never a doubt that newspapers have first amendment rights.

It did, but they weren't buying an advert, they were screening a movie. But there isn't any fundamental difference between those things, in terms of speech rights.

Hence my use of the word "media".

 

[BenBurch]

Ben doesn't like that corporations have free speech of their own. That's what Citizens United was about. It had nothing to do with campaign contributions, but whether or not a corporation could engage in political speech on its own.

Correct. And shareholder of a corporation can say anything he wants and spend his own money. A corporation is a consortium of shareholders, every one of which has a voice and free speech.

 

[BenBurch]

No, it's broader than that. The New York Times speaks politically every time they run an op/ed on politics. And they are a corporation.

....

"The Press" is its own category independent of this discussion, and has been since the founding.