• 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!

Corporate Personhood

Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    Votes: 6 9.4%

  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    Votes: 58 90.6%
  • Total voters
    64
misterman said:
No you can't, not with the First Amendment in place. Thank God for that, it protects us from people like you.



Because there's no freedom of donation in the Constitution. There is freedom of speech.

This supreme court decision had nothing to do with political donations, only speech.
Click to expand...

Then there is no freedom of individuals to use their money to support a candidate.
It is the same thing as donating their money to support a politician.


Think of it this way, if i donate money to a politician, or I spend money to support that candidate i am accomplishing the same thing so they should both be limited in the same way.
 
nerv14 said:
Then there is no freedom of individuals to use their money to support a candidate.
It is the same thing as donating their money to support a politician.


Think of it this way, if i donate money to a politician, or I spend money to support that candidate i am accomplishing the same thing so they should both be limited in the same way.
Click to expand...

If you volunteer for a candidate or write letters to the paper about him or tell your friends about him, you are accomplishing the same thing.

You're right - they should all be limited in the same way. Which is to say, not.
 
nerv14 said:
Then there is no freedom of individuals to use their money to support a candidate.
It is the same thing as donating their money to support a politician.

Think of it this way, if i donate money to a politician, or I spend money to support that candidate i am accomplishing the same thing so they should both be limited in the same way.
Click to expand...

No, you're not accomplishing the same thing.

If you buy an ad for yourself, you're exercising your right to speak. If you give money to a candidate, you're helping them exercise their right to speak. When you make a donation, you give up control of the money.

But if you think so, then there IS a right to donate whatever you want.
 
Kandahar said:
I believe corporations should have SOME (but not all) of the same rights as people. Basically I'm in favor of where the law stood until yesterday, when the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of precedent to give corporations all the rights of human beings. :2mad:
Click to expand...

Hmmm, does this mean corporations can get married? :)
 
RightinNYC said:
If you volunteer for a candidate or write letters to the paper about him or tell your friends about him, you are accomplishing the same thing.

You're right - they should all be limited in the same way. Which is to say, not.
Click to expand...

I am against people using money to accomplish that.



for instance, if an individual wants to vollunteer their time for a candidate that is fine. (if its direct or indirect like talking to your friends then that is fine)

but you can't go hiring someone to talk about a candidate to talk to people to promote the candidate without restrictions.

misterman said:
No, you're not accomplishing the same thing.

If you buy an ad for yourself, you're exercising your right to speak. If you give money to a candidate, you're helping them exercise their right to speak. When you make a donation, you give up control of the money.

But if you think so, then there IS a right to donate whatever you want.
Click to expand...

you can say that it is a right as much as you want, but since it has negative effects on society, unlimited donations by an individual for a campaign should be prevented.

unless you tell me why that "right" needs to be upheld your point is moot.
 
ok, i have to repeat this in another post because its so important.


for anyone to say that someone's right to express their opinion in some way (like donating money to a campaign) needs to be upheld, you need to supply a reason why that right must be upheld.

all i am hearing is that the first amendment says that, but you need to ask yourselves why freedom of speech is so important at this instance.
 
Last edited:
Because freedom of speech, and the right to support the candidate of your choice, affects elections.

The main purpose of political free speech is to persuade people to come around to your point of view, or to vote for the person you favor.

Who gets elected affects what laws are passed and the general character of government.

Can't get too much more important than that.
 
Goshin said:
Because freedom of speech, and the right to support the candidate of your choice, affects elections.

The main purpose of political free speech is to persuade people to come around to your point of view, or to vote for the person you favor.

Who gets elected affects what laws are passed and the general character of government.

Can't get too much more important than that.
Click to expand...

yeah, and the problem is that most people do not want interests with large amounts of money to have too much influence over how we vote.

I don't see anything wrong with an individual saying what they want about a candidate, but there are problems when large amounts of money control the dialogue that is going on.
 
nerv14 said:
yeah, and the problem is that most people do not want interests with large amounts of money to have too much influence over how we vote.

I don't see anything wrong with an individual saying what they want about a candidate, but there are problems when large amounts of money control the dialogue that is going on.
Click to expand...

Most people have a problem with groups that they disagree with throwing large amounts of money around on political speech. When we're talking about a group/org they support, then "that's different".

I don't like George Soros throwing around millions upon millions to influence elections.

I'm perfectly fine with the NRA or GOA doing it...because I'm a member of both organizations and they are helping forward the agenda of millions of people like me.

Matter of perspective. If I want to have my NRA and GOA, then I guess I have to tolerate Soros.
 
Goshin said:
Most people have a problem with groups that they disagree with throwing large amounts of money around on political speech. When we're talking about a group/org they support, then "that's different".

I don't like George Soros throwing around millions upon millions to influence elections.

I'm perfectly fine with the NRA or GOA doing it...because I'm a member of both organizations and they are helping forward the agenda of millions of people like me.

Matter of perspective. If I want to have my NRA and GOA, then I guess I have to tolerate Soros.
Click to expand...

The conflict that you have would be avoided IF NO organization could donate as much money as they wanted to a campaign.

An environment that outlaws unlimited contributions from the NRA, GOA and Soros is better then one that allows full donations from all of them.
 
nerv14 said:
The conflict that you have would be avoided IF NO organization could donate as much money as they wanted to a campaign.

An environment that outlaws unlimited contributions from the NRA, GOA and Soros is better then one that allows full donations from all of them.
Click to expand...

Define contributions. Would that include an organization taking it upon itself to air ads supporting Candidate X? Or ads supporting a principle Candidate X is known to support, even if it doesn't mention him by name?

Or are you only referring to direct campaign contributions?

It is proven fact that when millions of ordinary citizens pool what resources they can spend on politics together, their voice is heard in the halls of power more effectively than if they were acting purely as individuals. This is where I have issues.
 
Goshin said:
Define contributions. Would that include an organization taking it upon itself to air ads supporting Candidate X?
Click to expand...
if the organization created and paid for the adds, then there would be regulations.

Or ads supporting a principle Candidate X is known to support, even if it doesn't mention him by name?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it was explicit enough then it would be regulated.

But if national geographic does a program on global warming for instance, then they can not say that democrats are promoting that.

I think I would be against them saying that "cap and trade" would be the best policy to confront global warming though.

They would only be able to go so far to say that many scientists think that CO2 emissions should be cut for instance.

I don't think there would be any problems with that policy by the government, if there is any then point them out.

Or are you only referring to direct campaign contributions?
Click to expand...
nope, any type of monetary assistance for a candidate.
It is proven fact that when millions of ordinary citizens pool what resources they can spend on politics together, their voice is heard in the halls of power more effectively than if they were acting purely as individuals. This is where I have issues.
Click to expand...

I don't think we disagree on this issue too much then.

As long as there is a cap on contributions from an individual, to an organization that can promote a candidate as much as they want, then that is fine. If everyone in the NRA donates $1000 or something to the organization to lobby, then I would have no problem with that.

The problem is that corporations or labor unions are able to contribute money with no limit for a cause. there would need to be limits on corporation contributions per corporation or per revenue.
 
Last edited:
Corporations are created to share the risk of owning a business amongst many people. It is not a person in itself. It is composed of people. The corporation does not have an income tax, the people who compose it are subject to the income tax. The free speech of a corporation should not be infringed upon because doing so infringes upon the free speech of the people who compose the corporation.
 
nerv14 said:
I am against people using money to accomplish that.

for instance, if an individual wants to vollunteer their time for a candidate that is fine. (if its direct or indirect like talking to your friends then that is fine)

but you can't go hiring someone to talk about a candidate to talk to people to promote the candidate without restrictions.
Click to expand...

I shouldn't be able to rent a car to drive door to door to talk about a candidate that I like? I shouldn't be able to use a stamp to mail a letter to a paper about a candidate I like? I shouldn't be able to buy some chips to feed people who come to an event I'm hosting to talk about a candidate I like? I shouldn't be able to take out an ad in the local paper urging people to vote for a candidate I like?
 
nerv14 said:
ok, i have to repeat this in another post because its so important.

for anyone to say that someone's right to express their opinion in some way (like donating money to a campaign) needs to be upheld, you need to supply a reason why that right must be upheld.

all i am hearing is that the first amendment says that, but you need to ask yourselves why freedom of speech is so important at this instance.
Click to expand...

Aparently, you don't understand or appreciate a key word used in your observation.

The onus isn't upon the "free" to justify their right to express their views.

The onus is on those who would seek to limit or to take that right away to explain THEIR justifications for doing so.
 
nerv14 said:
yeah, and the problem is that most people do not want interests with large amounts of money to have too much influence over how we vote.
Click to expand...

Listen to yourself talk for a minute.

If you don't want them to have influence over you, don't let them. You have the choice.

If you are a robot who just votes for whoever someone else tells you to, then do us all a favor and stay home on election day.
 
Why don't we just vote for the best candidate on the ballad, and keep money out of it.
 
nerv14 said:
The conflict that you have would be avoided IF NO organization could donate as much money as they wanted to a campaign.
Click to expand...

That's already true.

Corporations are still forbidden from donating ANY money from their corporate treasuries to a campaign. Do you understand that?

This case simply says they can spend money to directly express their views about politics or elections.

An environment that outlaws unlimited contributions from the NRA, GOA and Soros is better then one that allows full donations from all of them.
Click to expand...

No, more speech is better than less. A place where everyone is forbidden from speaking isn't a democracy.
 
RightinNYC said:
I shouldn't be able to rent a car to drive door to door to talk about a candidate that I like? I shouldn't be able to use a stamp to mail a letter to a paper about a candidate I like? I shouldn't be able to buy some chips to feed people who come to an event I'm hosting to talk about a candidate I like? I shouldn't be able to take out an ad in the local paper urging people to vote for a candidate I like?
Click to expand...

Everyone who thinks money has nothing to do with speech needs to think about that next time their ISP bill comes due.
 
misterman said:
Listen to yourself talk for a minute.

If you don't want them to have influence over you, don't let them. You have the choice.

If you are a robot who just votes for whoever someone else tells you to, then do us all a favor and stay home on election day.
Click to expand...

What is even more compelling than that (to me) is the notion that law makers have every right to make laws affecting corporations, how they are taxed, how much, how they can use resources, hire, fire and what benefits they can provide (bonuses),.... But that a corporation should NOT have the same right that a 'person' would have to "speak" about it.

It's lunacy.
 
RightinNYC said:
I shouldn't be able to rent a car to drive door to door to talk about a candidate that I like? I shouldn't be able to use a stamp to mail a letter to a paper about a candidate I like? I shouldn't be able to buy some chips to feed people who come to an event I'm hosting to talk about a candidate I like? I shouldn't be able to take out an ad in the local paper urging people to vote for a candidate I like?
Click to expand...

yeah all of that is fine, except for the last one of course though.

you can have any even that you want about a candidate on your tv show, as long as the entire television show doesn't have one goal of promoting a candidate or political party.

Chuz Life said:
Aparently, you don't understand or appreciate a key word used in your observation.

The onus isn't upon the "free" to justify their right to express their views.

The onus is on those who would seek to limit or to take that right away to explain THEIR justifications for doing so.
Click to expand...

You are right, and the burdon that must be overcame by the government is if someone is using money in an unregulated way to promote a candidate.

misterman said:
Listen to yourself talk for a minute.

If you don't want them to have influence over you, don't let them. You have the choice.

If you are a robot who just votes for whoever someone else tells you to, then do us all a favor and stay home on election day.
Click to expand...

Obviously people have a choice who they will vote for.

but statistically, if you throw alot of money advertising for a candidate, many more people will support them. Individuals are individuals, but we all have actions that statistically are promoted by certain causes.



all of you seem to be arguing against ANY regulations on campaign contributions. That is a very radical and destructive policy choice. I am just supporting a policy that we had last week. :p
 
Chuz Life said:
What is even more compelling than that (to me) is the notion that law makers have every right to make laws affecting corporations, how they are taxed, how much, how they can use resources, hire, fire and what benefits they can provide (bonuses),.... But that a corporation should NOT have the same right that a 'person' would have to "speak" about it.

It's lunacy.
Click to expand...

fyi i am against taxing bonuses, but not for constitutional reasons.
 
phattonez said:
Corporations are created to share the risk of owning a business amongst many people. It is not a person in itself. It is composed of people. The corporation does not have an income tax, the people who compose it are subject to the income tax. The free speech of a corporation should not be infringed upon because doing so infringes upon the free speech of the people who compose the corporation.
Click to expand...
This is a clever argument, but it fails because the nature of the corporation is different from the nature of the people who compose it. Because corporations have only one interest, profit, their behavior is significantly different from the individual behavior of its shareholders, who have many interests.

When a corporation speaks for its interests, it speaks only for that one shared interest of all its shareholders. That one interest--drawing as much profit as possible from a business activity--should not overshadow the diverse interests of shareholders. Shareholders might, if you polled them, support any number of government actions (or inactions) because other interests overshadow profit. People who run corporations regularly do things in the pursuit of profit that they would not do in their personal lives.
 
Rassales said:
This is a clever argument, but it fails because the nature of the corporation is different from the nature of the people who compose it. Because corporations have only one interest, profit, their behavior is significantly different from the individual behavior of its shareholders, who have many interests.
Click to expand...

Human action is always toward profit. In this way there is no difference between the corporation and a person.

When a corporation speaks for its interests, it speaks only for that one shared interest of all its shareholders. That one interest--drawing as much profit as possible from a business activity--should not overshadow the diverse interests of shareholders. Shareholders might, if you polled them, support any number of government actions (or inactions) because other interests overshadow profit. People who run corporations regularly do things in the pursuit of profit that they would not do in their personal lives.
Click to expand...

Except that no one is stopping the separate entities that comprise the corporation from speaking out on those things that are most important to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom