• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporations have the right to lobby?

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

Banned
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
330
Location
in a neocon's craw
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I was watching Cspan's Washington Journal this morning (as I do every morning) and they had on Paul Singer, senior editor for "Roll Call". One of the things he was talking about was Obama's ethics reform and in one of his comments he said that corporations have a right to lobby Congress for their interests... I've been meaning to discuss this for a while but I keep forgetting so here goes.

Where in the Constitution does it give corporations/entities/organizations the right to lobby Congress? Amendment I of the Bill of rights says "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I heard something about a court reporter that made a mistake in some document which was later used to give citizens rights to corporations.

Anyone have info on any of this?
 
Well, where is the right to privacy granted in the Constitution? I mean, you're treating the Constitution as though it was intended to affirmatively grant rights to citizens as opposed to act as a limit on government power.

As well, what is a corporation if not a person or a collection of person's?

Why do you think that an individual has a right to petition the government until he says he's petitioning the government on behalf of his business interests or the business interests of a collection of individuals?
 
JMak said:
Well, where is the right to privacy granted in the Constitution? I mean, you're treating the Constitution as though it was intended to affirmatively grant rights to citizens as opposed to act as a limit on government power.
Click to expand...
I don't know, maybe because we are talking about the Bill of Rights? Isn't the title self explanatory?

As well, what is a corporation if not a person or a collection of person's?
Click to expand...
A corporation is not a citizen. It is the property of a citizen or a group of citizens (or foreigners).
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Click to expand...
Is there any place in the Constitution that considers a corporation or company to be a citizen?

Why do you think that an individual has a right to petition the government until he says he's petitioning the government on behalf of his business interests or the business interests of a collection of individuals?
Click to expand...
Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of corporations. It does talk about the rights of each individual citizen but says nothing about collective bargaining or group lobbying beyond protesting. At least as far as I know. I'm open to ideas on this but they have to make sense. You can't just say that a corp is a person because it's not a person and that is why it's called a corporation instead of a person.
 
After the Civil War, there was a Supreme Court decision that found that corporations are legally persons, and thus have the same rights as persons.

And you think the activist judges today are bad?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
After the Civil War, there was a Supreme Court decision that found that corporations are legally persons, and thus have the same rights as persons.

And you think the activist judges today are bad?
Click to expand...
See that's along the lines of what I heard except that it was a clerical mistake which was used to give corps rights as persons.
 
Ah ha!! I knew I'd heard it somewhere.

Hartmann, the author of Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, pointed out numerous court cases citing the 1886 Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County vs. S. Pacific Railroad.

The case supposedly granted corporations constitutional rights, becoming the basis of at least 34 Supreme Court cases since which affirm these rights.

Hartmann went over the case himself and found that only the headnote, a summary of the case that bears no legal legitimacy, states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as a citizen. Nowhere in the case text was he able to find a ruling that would support the statement.

“A mistake,” said Hartmann, “that they’re still teaching in law schools.”

He advocated a reversal of the 1886 ruling, a reversal that can only be brought about by a grass- roots movement. “The Supreme Court reflects the main thinking in the U.S.” he said. “They always respond to pressure from the ground up.”

Organizations such as the Green Party and the Women’s International Peace Coalition are working to change the ruling by placing pressure not only on the courts, but also on the legislature, at both the national and state level.

Tom Broz (’08) compared Hartmann to “radical” historians Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. “Everybody thinks they have an agenda or bias,” said Broz, “and they do, but it’s about getting the truth out.”

Hartmann began his study of “corporate personhood” after he discovered the works of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson argued that the natural state of living is democracy, and that the individual has rights, while institutions should only have privileges.

“What Jefferson and the founders of the constitution had in mind is not happening now,” said Hartmann, whose latest book is, What Would Jefferson Do? A Return to Democracy.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Jello is made up of water, does that make it water?
Click to expand...




Yeah, that was bright. :roll:



i can lobby as a person for anything I want, whether it is about sea turtles, or heroin legalization, to guitar hero, to pepsi.......

see 1st amendment.
 
Slippery Slope said:
I don't know, maybe because we are talking about the Bill of Rights? Isn't the title self explanatory?


A corporation is not a citizen. It is the property of a citizen or a group of citizens (or foreigners).

Is there any place in the Constitution that considers a corporation or company to be a citizen?


Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of corporations. It does talk about the rights of each individual citizen but says nothing about collective bargaining or group lobbying beyond protesting. At least as far as I know. I'm open to ideas on this but they have to make sense. You can't just say that a corp is a person because it's not a person and that is why it's called a corporation instead of a person.
Click to expand...
For heaven's sake, do you even understand the nature of the Bill of Rights and its history? If you don't understand the truth of what jmak said, how can you possibly discuss these amendments with any authority?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Yeah, that was bright. :roll:



i can lobby as a person for anything I want, whether it is about sea turtles, or heroin legalization, to guitar hero, to pepsi.......

see 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
Yes you can, if you are a citizen. A corporation isn't a citizen, it is an entity authorized by the government to exist.

In a free market, why should a company beg the government for a boon instead of letting the market see to it's rise or fall? Isn't lobbying basically saying 'I want the government to help me'?
 
American said:
For heaven's sake, do you even understand the nature of the Bill of Rights and its history? If you don't understand the truth of what jmak said, how can you possibly discuss these amendments with any authority?
Click to expand...
I do understand what he said, I'm not speaking with authority, I'm asking a question to get peoples input, not for you to, as usual, roll in and make an acrimonious comment. If you'd prefer not to discuss it then don't.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Jello is made up of water, does that make it water?
Click to expand...

No, but the individual atoms of jello are water and can do whatever the **** the Bill of Water Rights allows them to do.


Slippery Slope said:
Ah ha!! I knew I'd heard it somewhere.
Click to expand...

I was curious about this "Hartmann" guy, so I decided to see where he got his law degree.

By 1967, Hartmann was studying at Michigan State University and working as part-time news announcer at local country music station WITL while protesting the Vietnam War with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). He received his C.H. (Chartered Herbalist) degree from Dominion Herbal College, an M.H. (Master of Herbology) degree from Emerson College, and a Ph.D. in Homeopathic Medicine from Brantridge in England.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's exactly who I want to be getting my views on 19th century jurisprudence from.
 
RightinNYC said:
No, but the individual atoms of jello are water and can do whatever the **** the Bill of Water Rights allows them to do.
Great so please quote the paragraph in the Bill of Rights that says entity/organization/company instead of people/person/citizen.

I was curious about this "Hartmann" guy, so I decided to see where he got his law degree.

Yea, that's exactly who I want to be getting my views on 19th century jurisprudence from.
Click to expand...
So because he didn't slither out of Trinity Law School he must be wrong? I see, as usual, you bullies disregard facts based on someone's political leaning or education. I always thought facts are facts regardless of where they come from. Now, if you'd like to dispute what he said you might look less partisan.
 
Slippery Slope said:
So because he didn't slither out of Trinity Law School he must be wrong? I see, as usual, you bullies disregard facts based on someone's political leaning or education. I always thought facts are facts regardless of where they come from. Now, if you'd like to dispute what he said you might look less partisan.
Click to expand...

No, I'm disputing it because the guy is arguing legal issues without a law degree, or what looks to be like much of an education.

Have you read Santa Clara County vs. S. Pacific Railroad? I just did, and Shepardized it to make sure. It wasn't "the basis" for 34 SC decisions, it wasn't a "clerical error" and this:

Hartmann went over the case himself and found that only the headnote, a summary of the case that bears no legal legitimacy, states that corporations have the same constitutional rights as a citizen. Nowhere in the case text was he able to find a ruling that would support the statement.
Click to expand...

Is just plain misleading. The statement in question was an obiter dictum, expressed by the Chief Justice. Is it legally binding on lower courts? no. Is it valid for later courts to consider it? Of course.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Yes you can, if you are a citizen. A corporation isn't a citizen, it is an entity authorized by the government to exist.

In a free market, why should a company beg the government for a boon instead of letting the market see to it's rise or fall? Isn't lobbying basically saying 'I want the government to help me'?
Click to expand...

A corporation is a conglomeration of people working to garner profit for their shareholders who are also people. The corporation is the same as any other conglomerate of people and is represented by a spokesperson. The mistake you're making here is that you're trying to equate a corporation as the controlling entity and not the CEO's and exec's who run it.

Those financial elites have a constitutional right to lobby for the advancement of their goals which is profit as oppossed to some other ideology. Ironically, most other heavy hitting political groups are incorporated themselves although under non-profit sections.

I still don't understand why you're even bringing the corporation itself as an entity into this conversation.
 
Keorythe said:
A corporation is a conglomeration of people working to garner profit for their shareholders who are also people. The corporation is the same as any other conglomerate of people and is represented by a spokesperson. The mistake you're making here is that you're trying to equate a corporation as the controlling entity and not the CEO's and exec's who run it.

Those financial elites have a constitutional right to lobby for the advancement of their goals which is profit as oppossed to some other ideology. Ironically, most other heavy hitting political groups are incorporated themselves although under non-profit sections.

I still don't understand why you're even bringing the corporation itself as an entity into this conversation.
Click to expand...
I know what a corporation is, I have an S Corp. an LLC. Where in the Constitution does it say that entities/organizations/corporations/companies et al. have any rights what-so-ever? Where is the right of one person to redress the grievances of another?

Maybe there are 2 separate issues with companies,
1) lobbying
2) the rights of a citizen.

So far no one has been able to make any argument other than companies are run by people. The Constitution does detail the Rights of the citizen but is silent on companies. Do you think the FF meant for companies to full under the term citizen? If so, what brings you to that conclusion? It would seem reasonable that if corporations were meant to have the same rights as a citizen then the 1st amendment would read "...or the right of the people and businesses peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
 
Slippery Slope said:
Yes you can, if you are a citizen. A corporation isn't a citizen, it is an entity authorized by the government to exist.
Click to expand...

The person representing the corporation is. Game set match.


In a free market, why should a company beg the government for a boon instead of letting the market see to it's rise or fall? Isn't lobbying basically saying 'I want the government to help me'?
Click to expand...


I am not for corporate welfare so I am not sure how this has to do with individual citizens lobbying for the companies they work for.
 
Slippery Slope said:
I know what a corporation is, I have an S Corp. an LLC. Where in the Constitution does it say that entities/organizations/corporations/companies et al. have any rights what-so-ever? Where is the right of one person to redress the grievances of another?

Maybe there are 2 separate issues with companies,
1) lobbying
2) the rights of a citizen.

So far no one has been able to make any argument other than companies are run by people. The Constitution does detail the Rights of the citizen but is silent on companies. Do you think the FF meant for companies to full under the term citizen? If so, what brings you to that conclusion? It would seem reasonable that if corporations were meant to have the same rights as a citizen then the 1st amendment would read "...or the right of the people and businesses peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

I'm a sole proprietor myself and one of the other guys in the office has his own LLC. But our "companies" (really contractors so the boss doesn't have to list us on his payroll) are represented by us. Any rights that our companies attribute are a result of our rights as private citizens.

You're still making the mistake of trying to treat a company as anything different than some no-name political action committee or even something larger like Greenpeace. All of the above are owned or run by a group of private citizens with specific goals. Greenpeace will have environmental and treehugging goals while a corporation will have profit goals. Greenpeace will send a representative to convey their message and convince politicians to see it their way. A corporation's CEO or Board of Directors will have specific goals as well. While not as lofty as tree hugging, it will be specific to allowing them to conduct business in a certain way which may be affected by certain legislation. This may be to allow them to function under lower taxes or argue their case against the Union "secret ballot" laws.

Lobbying is still just representation of a group of private citizens. Whether they are on a Board of Directors or Joe Six Pack doesn't really matter. Corporations themselves have no citizen rights.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Where in the Constitution does it give corporations/entities/organizations the right to lobby Congress?
Click to expand...
The Constititon doesn't give anyone the right to lobby Congress.
 
Well, if corporations are being taxed, it seems fair to at least allow them to lobby. No taxation without representation. That said, there should be some transparency made to the public about their activities. How about corporations that don't pay taxes can't lobby?
 
obvious Child said:
Well, if corporations are being taxed, it seems fair to at least allow them to lobby. No taxation without representation. That said, there should be some transparency made to the public about their activities. How about corporations that don't pay taxes can't lobby?
Click to expand...

What about nonprofits?
 
Slippery Slope said:
I know what a corporation is, I have an S Corp. an LLC. Where in the Constitution does it say that entities/organizations/corporations/companies et al. have any rights what-so-ever? Where is the right of one person to redress the grievances of another?

Maybe there are 2 separate issues with companies,
1) lobbying
2) the rights of a citizen.

So far no one has been able to make any argument other than companies are run by people. The Constitution does detail the Rights of the citizen but is silent on companies. Do you think the FF meant for companies to full under the term citizen? If so, what brings you to that conclusion? It would seem reasonable that if corporations were meant to have the same rights as a citizen then the 1st amendment would read "...or the right of the people and businesses peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy or the right to marriage. Yet we have those. IX Amendment (my favorite amendment BTW)

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In layman's terms just because it isn't written down in the Bill of Rights it doesn't mean that we don't have rights or that any right is more or less important than any other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom