• 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
Cassandra said:
What evidence is there that corporations speak for either employees or shareholders? None . A "share" is simply a financial instrument not a political position.
Click to expand...

Never said there was.

I said:
The Mark said:
I would argue that as both the A.A.R.P and the N.R.A take political positions which benefit their members, so also do corporations take political positions which benefit their members.
Click to expand...

By which I meant:

Corporations in most cases probably take political positions which benefit their members financially.
Groups like the A.A.R.P and the N.R.A in most cases probably take political positions which benefit their members socially (and perhaps to some extent financially, as in Social Security, Medicare (sp?), etc.).

Additionally, corporations DO speak for their employees and/or shareholders when they take political positions. Their employees and/or shareholders just don’t pay as much attention.
 
misterman said:
Do newspapers have rights, or just the individuals running them? Newspapers spend corporate money from their their treasuries, exactly like corporations, to pay for the ink and paper to express the views of the individuals.
Click to expand...

No the individuals do that.
A corporation is not alive and cannot do such a thing.

"is the attribution of human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts. Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivation able to reason and converse."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism]Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

misterman said:
Or as corporate entities. Just like a newspaper publisher can.
Click to expand...

Why do they need to be corporations and not just simple owners or a partnership?

misterman said:
Again, read it. There is nothing about individuals with regard to freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Because they did not think that people would be infinitely retarded to believe that something that is not sapient, sentient and alive could do anything.

misterman said:
Are churches groups? Hmmm. What about when a corporate entity is sued - does it have a right to a jury trial, etc? I wonder.
Click to expand...

No a corporation does not have a right to a jury trial.
Corporations do not do anything, the owners and employees do.

People, who are alive and can make choices are afforded those rights.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
No the individuals do that.
A corporation is not alive and cannot do such a thing.
Click to expand...

So you're saying newspapers don't spend money?

Why do they need to be corporations and not just simple owners or a partnership?
Click to expand...

The point is they ARE corporations, yet nobody would say they have no right to freedom of the press. Even if they were a partnership - a partnership is not an individual. It's a partnership.

Because they did not think that people who be infinitely retarded to believe that something that is not sapient, sentient and alive could do anything.
Click to expand...

Don't use the term retarded please. It's rude.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." No exceptions based on who, or what, is speaking.

No a corporation does not have a right to a jury trial.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does:

U.S. Supreme Court
ROSS v. BERNHARD, 396 U.S. 531 (1970)
396 U.S. 531

ROSS ET AL., TRUSTEES v. BERNHARD ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 42.
Argued November 10, 1969
Decided February 2, 1970

The right to trial by jury preserved by the Seventh Amendment extends to a stockholder's derivative suit with respect to those issues as to which the corporation, had it been suing in its own right, would have been entitled to a jury trial.
Click to expand...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=396&invol=531

What about churches - do they have freedom of religion?

Corporations do not do anything, the owners and employees do.
Click to expand...

Hey, fine - then the individuals running the corporations are the ones doing the freedom of speech thing.

People, who are alive and can make choices are afforded those rights.
Click to expand...

Corporations can make choices too.

You, like so many people, jumped to a hasty conclusion you didn't think through. Not a big deal, just drop it.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because very few, if any, groups have the exact same unified beliefs.

Every human is different in beliefs, even if it is a matter of degree.
Click to expand...

That may be an argument for why it "shouldn't" apply, but it's not evidence of what the Bill of Rights was "meant" to do.

Besides, you don't need entirely unified beliefs to act/speak as a group.
 
A group of people pool their money to buy an ad.

A group of people form a corporation, using the corporation's money to buy an ad.

What's the difference?
 
Cassandra said:
What evidence is there that corporations speak for either employees or shareholders? None . A "share" is simply a financial instrument not a political position.
Click to expand...

A corporation has no reason to "speak for" employees any more than I as individual would have to speak for my accountant.

A share (usually) gives you a vote in the corporation.
 
misterman said:
So you're saying newspapers don't spend money?
Click to expand...

People spend money, a corporation cannot it is not alive.

misterman said:
The point is they ARE corporations, yet nobody would say they have no right to freedom of the press. Even if they were a partnership - a partnership is not an individual. It's a partnership.
Click to expand...

And each partner can exercise their rights in any way that they please.
Each partner is fully liable for their decisions.

Under current law, a corporation can be held liable even though individuals broke the law.
A contradiction perhaps?

misterman said:
Don't use the term retarded please. It's rude.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." No exceptions based on who, or what, is speaking.
Click to expand...

My bad, and I apologize if it came off as personally insulting.
I meant to word it as the idea is retarded and not you.

Corporations can not speak, they are not alive.
Corporations are abstracts, you can not put a corporation in my hand.
You cannot hear a corporation speak.

misterman said:
Yes, it does:



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

What about churches - do they have freedom of religion?
Click to expand...

A church is a building and is not a living thing, it cannot make any choices, much less a choice of religion.

misterman said:
Hey, fine - then the individuals running the corporations are the ones doing the freedom of speech thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly, one problem with corporate personhood is that it can give some people double representation.

A person can be represented by a corporation as well as on an individual basis, do you not see how this can be problematic?

misterman said:
Corporations can make choices too.

You, like so many people, jumped to a hasty conclusion you didn't think through. Not a big deal, just drop it.
Click to expand...

Corporation = abstract, not real except on paper.

Abstracts are not alive and can not make choices.
 
Harshaw said:
That may be an argument for why it "shouldn't" apply, but it's not evidence of what the Bill of Rights was "meant" to do.

Besides, you don't need entirely unified beliefs to act/speak as a group.
Click to expand...

A group must use an individual to take action.
That individual has a right to free speech not the group itself.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A group must use an individual to take action.
That individual has a right to free speech not the group itself.
Click to expand...

Thus it would seem denying a corporation as a whole the ability to take action would be denying an individual member of the corporation the ability to take action
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
People spend money, a corporation cannot it is not alive.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now corporations don't spend money either.

Great! So if it is just individuals spending the money, they can do so using their right to freedom of speech. That settles the matter.

My bad, and I apologize if it came off as personally insulting.
I meant to word it as the idea is retarded and not you.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. I'm not insulted by it, it is offensive because you insult the mentally retarded by using it. Including members of my family.

Corporations can not speak, they are not alive.
Corporations are abstracts, you can not put a corporation in my hand.
You cannot hear a corporation speak.
Click to expand...

But you can send a check with a corporation's name on it to a TV station to pay for a political ad.

Like I said, if corporations can't speak, then there is no issue here - it's just about individuals exercising their right to speak using money from an account that happens to come from a corporation.

A political party also isn't a person - do parties have no freedom of speech?

A church is a building and is not a living thing, it cannot make any choices, much less a choice of religion.
Click to expand...

No, not a building - a membership organization. Like the Roman Catholic Church. Do religious organizations have freedom of religion?

A person can be represented by a corporation as well as on an individual basis, do you not see how this can be problematic?
Click to expand...

No. I am represented by myself and by the groups I'm a member of.

Corporation = abstract, not real except on paper.

Abstracts are not alive and can not make choices.
Click to expand...

All you're doing is arguing that people are making the decisions behind corporations, which is absolutely true. And since people have freedom of speech, it should be no problem for you.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A group must use an individual to take action.
That individual has a right to free speech not the group itself.
Click to expand...

That may be the way you'd prefer it (though I don't get why), but that's not the way it is.
 
misterman said:
Oh, so now corporations don't spend money either.

Great! So if it is just individuals spending the money, they can do so using their right to freedom of speech. That settles the matter.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all, individuals can still lobby for themselves.
There is nothing preventing that.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you prevent a corporation from lobbying (through use of corporate funds by an individual or individuals who are members of said corporation), then you prevent the individuals who make up that corporation from using it's funds to lobby, thus violating their rights to free speech.

Personally, I wish there were a way to separate money and politics...But that is impossible.
 
The Mark said:
Yes, but if you prevent a corporation from lobbying (through use of corporate funds by an individual or individuals who are members of said corporation), then you prevent the individuals who make up that corporation from using it's funds to lobby, thus violating their rights to free speech.

Personally, I wish there were a way to separate money and politics...But that is impossible.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

Money doesn't elect people. Votes do. Bribing people to vote is illegal. So the voters have 100% of the power, no tmoney.
 
misterman said:
No it's not.

Money doesn't elect people. Votes do. Bribing people to vote is illegal. So the voters have 100% of the power, not money.
Click to expand...

Directly bribing people to vote may be illegal, but indirect ways to do so are multitude.
 
misterman said:
No it's not.

Money doesn't elect people. Votes do. Bribing people to vote is illegal. So the voters have 100% of the power, no tmoney.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely false. Sure, it is illegal to bribe people to vote, but you can certainly buy votes by putting ads on TV telling people what they want to hear, whether or not it's factually true. That's all political ads are, a means of putting money to work buying votes by convincing people that your candidate is the one that ought to be voted for, or that the other candidate is someone that ought to be voted against.

The people with the most money, who can put out the most pervasive ad campaign, have a vast advantage over the candidate who has less money and less access to advertising.
 
The Mark said:
Never said there was.

I said:

By which I meant:

Corporations in most cases probably take political positions which benefit their members financially.
Click to expand...
Yeh, you have to use alot of "probaby's" and "maybe's" in that one because iwhen corporations "speak" for their employees or shareholders, it is purely by accident. You simply cannot claim that a corporation consists of a group of individuals who speak as one. You cannot even identify who speaks.
Additionally, corporations DO speak for their employees and/or shareholders when they take political positions. Their employees and/or shareholders just don’t pay as much attention.
Click to expand...

NO,NO, NO, They do not! Do you think that corporations are minny democracies? Shareholder control/ democracy is Soviet style rule. Employees of G.E. did not lobby for free trade so they could lose their jobs! That is just absurd. As often as not, corporate values are in opposition to those of its employees and shareholders.
 
Employees are hired by corporations. They're not part of the corporation unless they own stock.
 
Harshaw said:
Employees are hired by corporations. They're not part of the corporation unless they own stock.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Some people have included employees in the "group" that corporations supposedly represent.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The Bill of Rights was meant for individuals, faulty interpretations by the Supreme Court does not change this.
Click to expand...

So long as you acknowledge that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that corporations do indeed have many first amendment rights, that's fine. I don't have a problem debating what you think might be best in terms of policy, but I have a hard time with those who are denying the existence of facts in front of them (not referring to you with this).

They are bat**** insane to believe that a corporation, that is not alive, has no possible way of expressing itself and is not a human, can have rights.
Click to expand...

Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.

GM is nothing but a brand for which a business operates.
GM is not a living person nor can it talk, move, or express emotion.

It can not hire anyone, only a person can hire someone else.
Click to expand...

Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?

That's not it at all, I was just saying that the reasons for grouping are not always more efficient in lobbying for a specific individuals cause.

To be honest this isn't my main objection to corporate personhood.
My biggest problem is the deferment of liability.
Click to expand...

Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.
 
Cassandra said:
Yeh, you have to use alot of "probaby's" and "maybe's" in that one because iwhen corporations "speak" for their employees or shareholders, it is purely by accident.
Click to expand...
Not really.
A shareholder has invested in a given corporation, and expects to have whatever shares they hold increase in value. One method by which this is accomplished is by attempting to influence the laws which affect the corporation to its favor. That is in no way an accident.
An employee of a given corporation is also effected by such actions. But that is, indeed, much more accidental.
Cassandra said:
You simply cannot claim that a corporation consists of a group of individuals who speak as one.
Click to expand...
I didn't
Cassandra said:
You cannot even identify who speaks.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, I could. It would be whomever presented the positions of the corporation, as decided by it's directors.

Cassandra said:
NO,NO, NO, They do not! Do you think that corporations are minny democracies? Shareholder control/ democracy is Soviet style rule.
Click to expand...
No, obviously corporations are not mini democracies. Well, I'm perhaps a level of democratic process is used in those controlled by a board of directors, but it by no means includes all of a given corporation's employees.
Cassandra said:
Employees of G.E. did not lobby for free trade so they could lose their jobs! That is just absurd.
Click to expand...
You make the assumption here that "Free trade" = "loss of jobs". Depending, of course, on your definition of "free trade" and "loss of jobs".
Cassandra said:
As often as not, corporate values are in opposition to those of its employees and shareholders.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said corporations lobby political positions which are too the financial benefit of it's shareholders (and perhaps to some slight extent some of it's employees). Not the "values", or "morals", of it's shareholders and/or employees. Although I am sure that happens to some extent, probably more often in small corporations.
 
RightinNYC said:
So long as you acknowledge that long-standing Supreme Court precedent holds that corporations do indeed have many first amendment rights, that's fine. I don't have a problem debating what you think might be best in terms of policy, but I have a hard time with those who are denying the existence of facts in front of them (not referring to you with this).



Here you're talking about something different. While you're right that many of the cases dealing with the particular types of rights enjoyed by Corporations have been close, it is the uniform opinion of the Court that corporations enjoy some rights. The framework you're arguing in support of simply doesn't exist. If you read Stevens' dissent, he's not saying that corporations can't have rights - he explicitly acknowledges that they have many rights. His disagreement is simply over the extent of a portion of those rights and whether there can be particular limitations on them.



Using this logic, a company cannot build a defective product, only an individual can. Yet we allow people who are injured to sue the corporation. Why?
Click to expand...
That is what a corporation is for it takes the civil responsibility of the business. But it cant be held criminally liablel can it? Would the entire company be thrown in jail or just those responsible for the crime?
Corporate personhood is not a method of avoiding liability, it is a method of ensuring valid liability exists.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

nerv14 said:
Well, if we are going to get very technical, then because of the 10th amendment, since Congress does not have the authority to regulate campaign contributions then Congress can not carry out those powers.
Click to expand...
I think you don't really know the Constitution very well. Where do you get the idea that Congress can't pass a law?

Also, since people have a right to peacefully assemble, that would mean that the assembled group has a right to say what they want collectively, and therefore also have the authority to donate money collectively.
Click to expand...
Another wild stretch. So if I belong to 200 different groups then I can donate the maximum amount I'm allowed 201 times? Please, don't go from specious arguments to ridiculous ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom