- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered.
You know, I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but they are about to become the butt of a million jokes over this. At this point, I would like to ask a question, that perhaps a lawyer or 2 on this board can answer. Was it a mistake for the SCOTUS to give this ruling on free speech for artificial persons instead of the actual people who run corporations? After all, people who are officers in corporations actually exist, and have the ability to speak, thus deserving free speech. What about artificial persons? What next, will they earn the right to vote, and if so, how in the world would they be able to accomplish that task? I believe that there should be limits on what artificial persons are allowed to do. It's just common sense - The demonstration of all of this, carried to its extreme, is an artificial person running for office.
What do you think?
BTW, the idea for this company's marketing campaign is pure genius. LOL.
Article is here.
Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. “Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.” Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.
“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. said, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” Murray Hill Inc. added: “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.” Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an “emerging new market.”
You know, I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but they are about to become the butt of a million jokes over this. At this point, I would like to ask a question, that perhaps a lawyer or 2 on this board can answer. Was it a mistake for the SCOTUS to give this ruling on free speech for artificial persons instead of the actual people who run corporations? After all, people who are officers in corporations actually exist, and have the ability to speak, thus deserving free speech. What about artificial persons? What next, will they earn the right to vote, and if so, how in the world would they be able to accomplish that task? I believe that there should be limits on what artificial persons are allowed to do. It's just common sense - The demonstration of all of this, carried to its extreme, is an artificial person running for office.
What do you think?
BTW, the idea for this company's marketing campaign is pure genius. LOL.
Article is here.
Last edited: