• 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!

People vs. Corporations

Which group should have control of government?


  • Total voters
    40
eman623:

You make very good points. I reason it boils down to the degree of partisanship in the organisation. For example the NYT might run a pro-Democratic editorial on Monday but could run a pro-Republican editorial on Wednesday and a pro-independent editorial on Thursday. Lions Gate could release a Michael Moore picture one year and a right leaning film like Starship Troopets the next. The NYT and Lions Gate do not have as their primary objective as the influencing of a political race. They are profit making enterprises which cater to the public's appetite. So long as the NYT follows the fairness doctrine and gives a balanced editorial position from writers on all sides of the political process, then that is not interference in the electoral process. Likewise, so long as Lions Gate does not release a wholely partisan picture in the middle of an election campaign, then I see nothing wrong with releasing such films as works of art. The problem is that America has drifted into an almost three-year long election cycle, so it may be time to limit thee electoral process to a fixed period of time.

Citizens United was created as a vehicle to channel money specifically to influence elections. It is not a profit making enterprise which tangentially and secondarily impacts the electoral process but is rather a purpose-built driver and influencer of the political process. Therefore, in my opinion, Citizen United and similar organisations should not be allowed to fulfill such a purpose, be they left, centrist or right leaning organisation. Their purpose is to influence the election process, period.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Thanks for the reasoned response. My comments:

1. 90% of the reporters and editors on the NYT are registered Democrats. There is a high degree of partisanship there. Citizens United could reorganize as a for-profit company, run straight news on their website, and hire a token liberal or two to write op-eds. Would that make them enough like the NY Times to be exempt from corporate advocacy restrictions?

2. Lions Gate did release a wholly partisan political picture during the middle of an election race. Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in the summer of 2004 and played in theaters right up to the 2004 election. And there's no evidence they are following the Fairness Doctrine. Did LG ever released an anti-Obama advocacy movie in the summer of 2012? Or at any other time, or about any other politicians on the left? I don't think so.

3. I'm now confused about the logic why corporate advocacy groups should be restricted. At first I thought it was because for-profit corporations would hijack the electoral process to sway public opinion and enrich themselves. But the NYT and Lions Gate are for-profit organizations while CU is a non-profit. If say Exxon had released an anti-Climate change movie intended to sway public opinion, would you allow that? If not, why not? Exxon is a for-profit business mostly involved in energy extraction and is not primarily an election influencer. By your own arguments it would seem like their advocacy should be allowed.
 
Well, for like a hundred bucks you can create one with yourself as the CEO.

Pretty cheap for a supersuit and immortality.

But I'm sure you knew this because in order for you to be acting consistently with your stated beliefs you must have already created one.

I don't need a mechsuit.

I don't need ever more wealth and power.

Corporations are formed to acquire wealth and power, status. And primarily as shields against liability.

Which makes the "corporations are made up of people" argument problematic.

Because they formed the corporation so they could say "it wasn't me, it was the corporation" when the business screws up and gets hit with consequences.

But when it comes to spending the corporation's money on electioneering it magically becomes "We ARE the corporation".

Claiming the rights while avoiding the responsibility.
 
Which group should have control of government?

Obviously in a democratic society control of government should rest with the people.

If "corporations are people" is meant to suggest that corporations as entities should enjoy an actual level of independent personhood justifying direct participation in democratic governance, that's an obvious absurdity. I don't see any compelling argument that corporations should vote or that corporate treasury dollars should be available for electioneering activities.

If instead it's the relatively banal observation that people work at corporations, that's different. If you look at donations by industry at something like Open Secrets, those are just totals of people making personal donations categorized by where they happen to work. Maybe their candidate choice is influenced by considerations specific to their employment and industry, maybe not, people make contributions for all sorts of reasons. Doesn't matter, they don't have to justify it.

One step beyond that is allowing individuals associated with a particular corporate entity to pool personal donations via a separate segregated fund. Given that we allow individuals to associate and organize to amplify their voices under our system, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. There are all kinds of connected and non-connected PACs out there using personal donations to push all sorts of issues and interests. Given that's arguably the point of having our form of government and protecting freedom of association, I'd group that under the "people controlling government" category.
 
Corporations may be made of people but they are not people nor do they act in the public interest. Corporations, unions, and any other organization should have as little influence as possible in Western democracy as they are not the people, the only the people themselves should have a say. Political parties should be funded exclusively by individual donations capped at a low amount (e.g. $100 like Quebec) to ensure a level playing field for all citizens.

Personally I'd go with individual donations capped at a relatively low, inflation indexed amount (including contributions in kind, and vehicles like SuperPACs) plus a per vote public subsidy, a relatively short, legally defined campaigning season, overall political spending limits and significant limitations on professional lobbying. All of these things in some combination are particular to those countries that rank highest on the democracy index.
 
Last edited:
Obviously in a democratic society control of government should rest with the people.

If "corporations are people" is meant to suggest that corporations as entities should enjoy an actual level of independent personhood justifying direct participation in democratic governance, that's an obvious absurdity. I don't see any compelling argument that corporations should vote or that corporate treasury dollars should be available for electioneering activities.

If instead it's the relatively banal observation that people work at corporations, that's different. If you look at donations by industry at something like Open Secrets, those are just totals of people making personal donations categorized by where they happen to work. Maybe their candidate choice is influenced by considerations specific to their employment and industry, maybe not, people make contributions for all sorts of reasons. Doesn't matter, they don't have to justify it.

One step beyond that is allowing individuals associated with a particular corporate entity to pool personal donations via a separate segregated fund. Given that we allow individuals to associate and organize to amplify their voices under our system, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. There are all kinds of connected and non-connected PACs out there using personal donations to push all sorts of issues and interests. Given that's arguably the point of having our form of government and protecting freedom of association, I'd group that under the "people controlling government" category.

Curious: do you believe as the SCOTUS of 76 did that political spending is speech and should thus be unlimited? What about limits on professional lobbying? What about in general the grossly uneven playing field between the rich and the poor which is exacerbated in the States by its relative wild west in terms of political (including lobbying and PACs) and campaign finance?
 
Last edited:
No, but the money generated from IBM can be used to leverage politicians into manipulating policy for their benefit over that of the American people.

Unions and PAC's try to do the same thing. Democracy is all about influence and access. It's also about equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes. Some organizations are better at gaining influence and manipulating policy than others. Unions and some PAC's are very skillful at this.

Corporations have always been considered "people" for a number of reason, like contracts, lawsuits, and regulation. You don't have to sign your contract with every GM employee and every stockholder because GM is considered a "person". You don't have to sue every GM employee and stockholder because GM is considered a "person". See how it works? That's why the SC has always recognized corporations as "persons". You couldn't conduct business otherwise.
 
Its not just corporations alone, looking at the big picture there are state institutional causes as well. And not just in the military i.e. the Pentagon either, but also in the form of private military contractors infiltrating the intelligence community and influencing foreign policy via the big bucks. Essentially arms dealers, not unlike Mexican Drug Cartels, but better organized and more dangerous (although usually more predictable)...
 
Remember that the right wing working man believes that the black man, the brown man, and the foreigner are out to get them, but the corporation that laid them off, and the bank that evicted them are “people” too, and are thus blameless.

You won’t see a right winger ever criticize Wall Street, corporations or big banks.

They’re still earnestly waiting for that “trickle down” to start taking effect.

And they’re patient too. It’s only been 40 years since the GOP started peddling that notion.
 
A vote for anything other than PEOPLE is a vote for fascism.
 
Curious: do you believe as the SCOTUS of 76 did that political spending is speech and should thus be unlimited? What about limits on professional lobbying? What about in general the grossly uneven playing field between the rich and the poor which is exacerbated in the States by its relative wild west in terms of political (including lobbying and PACs) and campaign finance?

Political spending is a form of expression, as with any right the only question has ever been whether there are legitimate grounds for curtailing it. I don't personally believe that politics should be left to politicians and that rest of us should be content to participate only vicariously through candidates. "People controlling the government" means more than just popping up to vote every couple years.
 
Which group should have control of government?

The Republic was made Of the People, For the People, By the People.

I think one of the worst things we ever did was to invent this convoluted concept of corporate personhood. Corporations are not people, Corporations are property. They should be treated and taxed accordingly, and that's the end of it. Corporations are not people.
 
Corporations are not themselves people

People do not lose their inalienable rights when they come together to form voluntary associations like corporations and trade unions.
 
People do not lose their inalienable rights when they come together to form voluntary associations like corporations and trade unions.

They sure don't. And the individuals who make up the corporation possess all their rights. But Corporations themselves are not people, and Corporations themselves have no rights.
 
They sure don't. And the individuals who make up the corporation possess all their rights. But Corporations themselves are not people, and Corporations themselves have no rights.

They derive rights from the people who come together to form the corporation.
 
They derive rights from the people who come together to form the corporation.

No, they don't. Individuals possess rights, not things.
 
People do not lose their inalienable rights when they come together to form voluntary associations like corporations and trade unions.

Thats not what i mean. Those individuals have the rights but the corporation itself should not be considered a person.
 
Political spending is a form of expression, as with any right the only question has ever been whether there are legitimate grounds for curtailing it. I don't personally believe that politics should be left to politicians and that rest of us should be content to participate only vicariously through candidates. "People controlling the government" means more than just popping up to vote every couple years.

Tying political spending with speech and giving it first amendment protections just puts what is essentially buying favors and speaking speaking up under the same umbrella. It also makes the wealthy have more “expression” than the poor. Money is not the same thing as speech and political spending is not the same as speaking out.
 
Tying political spending with speech and giving it first amendment protections just puts what is essentially buying favors and speaking speaking up under the same umbrella. It also makes the wealthy have more “expression” than the poor. Money is not the same thing as speech and political spending is not the same as speaking out.

Buckley upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates precisely because it recognized the danger of even the appearance of impropriety in giving cash to those running for office. And there are limits on how much you can give a candidate. Nobody believes "buying favors" should be legal. And it isn't. But to jump from that to arguing you shouldn't be able to spend your own money on the things you care about is a big leap.

The New York Times Editorial Board has more "expression" than me because their thoughts on the issues reach millions more people than mine do. Should the government bust up their printing presses to make sure we're on an even footing? There are thousands of students and retirees knocking on doors in New Hampshire to push their preferred primary candidate right now. Is it fair that they have more time than I do to engage in retail politics because I have work to do? People will always have different allocations of time, money, organizational skills, talent, etc. I don't see how that unequal distribution determines whether or not you ought to get to use those things to advocate for what you care about in a representative democracy.
 
Political spending is a form of expression, as with any right the only question has ever been whether there are legitimate grounds for curtailing it. I don't personally believe that politics should be left to politicians and that rest of us should be content to participate only vicariously through candidates. "People controlling the government" means more than just popping up to vote every couple years.

In practice, the current arrangement of US electoral finance and political spending has meant essentially a form of de facto plutocracy however; something that has been confirmed by comprehensive studies on the matter, the Gilens and Page 2014 study being, to my knowledge, the most encompassing one to date (and if anything, things have only gotten worse since then). In my view, there can be no more compelling grounds for curtailing and limiting political spending in all forms than the overwhelming, dominant and disproportionate influence a tiny percentage of the population successfully and routinely exercises. The function and spirit of democracy is undoubtedly corroded when we let people purchase political influence without limit, or with limits so high or easily circumvented they may as well be non-existent.

Though it's obvious you will never completely eliminate the considerable advantage held by the wealthy in swaying the public and politicos, there is certainly much that can be done to even the playing field through the example of countries that rank highly on the Democracy index.
 
Buckley upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates precisely because it recognized the danger of even the appearance of impropriety in giving cash to those running for office. And there are limits on how much you can give a candidate. Nobody believes "buying favors" should be legal. And it isn't. But to jump from that to arguing you shouldn't be able to spend your own money on the things you care about is a big leap.

The New York Times Editorial Board has more "expression" than me because their thoughts on the issues reach millions more people than mine do. Should the government bust up their printing presses to make sure we're on an even footing? There are thousands of students and retirees knocking on doors in New Hampshire to push their preferred primary candidate right now. Is it fair that they have more time than I do to engage in retail politics because I have work to do? People will always have different allocations of time, money, organizational skills, talent, etc. I don't see how that unequal distribution determines whether or not you ought to get to use those things to advocate for what you care about in a representative democracy.

It is precisely because money doesnt = speech that your strawman is hilarious and the notion that you should get more say because of your riches is ridiculous. If you dont think corporations are buying politicians, i dunno what to tell you. Yeah they limit contributions from you and me but left wide open contributions from PACs and super PACs and corporations thats the problem. What you are saying is the rich having more say because of their riches is fine and dandy because people like you bastardized the first amendment which NEVER before gave credence to such notion. Those people are engaging in expression when they knock on doors which is nowhere near the same thing as giving money to a politician.
 
It is precisely because money doesnt = speech that your strawman is hilarious and the notion that you should get more say because of your riches is ridiculous. If you dont think corporations are buying politicians, i dunno what to tell you. Yeah they limit contributions from you and me but left wide open contributions from PACs and super PACs and corporations thats the problem. What you are saying is the rich having more say because of their riches is fine and dandy because people like you bastardized the first amendment which NEVER before gave credence to such notion. Those people are engaging in expression when they knock on doors which is nowhere near the same thing as giving money to a politician.

PACs do have limits on what they can contribute to a candidate. And Super PACs can't contribute to candidates at all. And I've already said that I don't think corporate treasury money should be available for electioneering activities. The question at hand isn't about giving money to candidates, it's about whether people's personal resources ought to be able to be used to directly advocate for issues, legislation or ballot initiatives, electoral outcomes, etc. If I care about climate change, can I join like-minded people by donating to the Environmental Defense Action Fund to amplify our voices and advance our agenda?

Tom Steyer really wants to impeach Donald Trump. So he has his Need to Impeach SuperPAC (financed primarily with donations from him but also a few hundred other people as well) and spent tens of millions running ads making his case and urging people to call their member of Congress. I don't see how you can argue that's not an example of speech.
 
If you take all the people out of a corporation, what can it possibly control?

Um, immortality?

Wealth and power?

What can't it control?
 
Back
Top Bottom