• 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
One fundamental difference between corporations and unions on one side and other kinds of groups created to influence public opinion is that corporations and unions have one single over-riding interest--profit and their own very limited economic well-being. While individuals are moral actors with a mixture of many motivations, corporations want only to increase revenues and limit costs. For a corporation, investments in political speech are just another kind of investment. Something similar can be said about unions.

Allowing public opinion to be bought and sold like any other commodity is inherently corrupting to our politics. The ideology on which modern democracy is based has at its roots the idea that individuals can look past their own individual self-interest when exercising their political rights--like voting and speaking on public issues. Corporations not only can't do this--they shouldn't. Neither can unions.

I suspect the net effect of this will be a growth in cynicism about all these institutions and a growing distrust of politics.
 
One fundamental difference between corporations and unions on one side and other kinds of groups created to influence public opinion is that corporations and unions have one single over-riding interest--profit and their own very limited economic well-being. While individuals are moral actors with a mixture of many motivations, corporations want only to increase revenues and limit costs. For a corporation, investments in political speech are just another kind of investment. Something similar can be said about unions.

Allowing public opinion to be bought and sold like any other commodity is inherently corrupting to our politics. The ideology on which modern democracy is based has at its roots the idea that individuals can look past their own individual self-interest when exercising their political rights--like voting and speaking on public issues. Corporations not only can't do this--they shouldn't. Neither can unions.

I suspect the net effect of this will be a growth in cynicism about all these institutions and a growing distrust of politics.

What a load of crap.

Everyone has self-interest. Deciding that some shouldn't be able to speak just because they want to make a profit is crazy. I want to make a profit too, by the way.

You can't just decide that some speech is corrupt or evil and restrict it on those grounds.
 
I am always tickled when people who are repulsed by the idea of applying the Constitution to terrorists or illegal combatants or illegal aliens or illegal immegrants or migrant workers (whatever the term de jour is) loudly and proudly proclaim that it should apply to corporations.

:lol:
 
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?

I do believe that a corporation has the same rights as a person. But I'm perplexed by the fact (in the eyes of some people) that a corporation has more of a right (claim) to personhood than a human pre-birth child does.
 
I am always tickled when people who are repulsed by the idea of applying the Constitution to terrorists or illegal combatants or illegal aliens or illegal immegrants or migrant workers (whatever the term de jour is) loudly and proudly proclaim that it should apply to corporations.

:lol:

I think that's because corporations A: respect the laws of the country B: don't attempt to kill civilians. Of course, to my knowledge. Once Apple starts bombing crowded subways, and Microsoft starts ignoring the laws of this country as a matter of course; please tell me.
 
I think that's because corporations A: respect the laws of the country B: don't attempt to kill civilians. Of course, to my knowledge. Once Apple starts bombing crowded subways, and Microsoft starts ignoring the laws of this country as a matter of course; please tell me.

I could list plenty of examples of laws that were broken and civilians who died because of the criminal negligence of corporate officers, but that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't stop applying to you because you break the law or try to kill civilians, because even then you still have rights.

The point is that there are people who try to split hairs to the point that they have their own alternate interpretation of the Constitution which only applies to citizens, and yet for some reason are overjoyed at the concept of corporations having civil rights.

I think that's hilarious.
 
I do believe that a corporation has the same rights as a person. But I'm perplexed by the fact (in the eyes of some people) that a corporation has more of a right (claim) to personhood than a human pre-birth child does.

So you think life begins at incorporation, huh? :mrgreen:
 
What a load of crap.

Everyone has self-interest. Deciding that some shouldn't be able to speak just because they want to make a profit is crazy. I want to make a profit too, by the way.

You can't just decide that some speech is corrupt or evil and restrict it on those grounds.

yeah you can.

its done with no problems all over the world (including here)

why can't i donate as much money as i want to any candidate in America?
 
Re: Should Corporations Have Personhood?

There are many groups which are not corporations which run ads, campaigns, etc. It's hardly just a "side effect" of the formation of corporations.

I disagree, I'm pretty sure people organized ads and campaigns before the advent of corporations.

Yes, exactly. Here are a few examples:

political parties
charities and other non-profits
schools and universities
think tanks
media outlets

By their logic, none would have free speech rights. Absurd.

They do not have free speech rights, absolutely correct.

Do you believe that all of these entities have arms, mouths, etc?
They can't even express themselves without the act of a human, a person.
 
I think that's because corporations A: respect the laws of the country B: don't attempt to kill civilians.

Actually, sometimes corporations fail on both regards.

But of course, nobody loses all their rights just because they don't respect the law or try to kill people. That's silly.
 
That doesn't answer the question, though. They are a corporation.

Does the First Amendment protect them or not?

You're saying that:

Newspapers should have freedom of the press applied to them, even when they are corporations. Since some are corporations, the principle must be applied to all corporations.

I am responding:

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be corporations. If we decide that newspapers cannot be, then it pokes a hole in your notion that corporations ought to be free to speak under the first amendment simply because some newspapers are corporations.



The framework of our democracy is breaking down. 'Radical' notions like rethinking corporatism in favor of a real free market economy will probably be ignored because of complacency. It is simply not painful enough, yet.

A symptom of the growing framework for tyranny is this notion of granting corporations the rights of individuals because they are composed of individuals. Applying the notion of freedom of speech to corporations is analogous to saying that because corporations represent the interests of their owners, they should be allowed to vote. Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.
 
yeah you can.

its done with no problems all over the world (including here)

No you can't, not with the First Amendment in place. Thank God for that, it protects us from people like you.

why can't i donate as much money as i want to any candidate in America?

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.
 
You're saying that:

Newspapers should have freedom of the press applied to them, even when they are corporations. Since some are corporations, the principle must be applied to all corporations.

I am responding:

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be corporations. If we decide that newspapers cannot be, then it pokes a hole in your notion that corporations ought to be free to speak under the first amendment simply because some newspapers are corporations.



The framework of our democracy is breaking down. 'Radical' notions like rethinking corporatism in favor of a real free market economy will probably be ignored because of complacency. It is simply not painful enough, yet.

A symptom of the growing framework for tyranny is this notion of granting corporations the rights of individuals because they are composed of individuals. Applying the notion of freedom of speech to corporations is analogous to saying that because corporations represent the interests of their owners, they should be allowed to vote. Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.

Exactly, :thumbs:
 
What a load of crap.

Everyone has self-interest. Deciding that some shouldn't be able to speak just because they want to make a profit is crazy. I want to make a profit too, by the way.

You can't just decide that some speech is corrupt or evil and restrict it on those grounds.
I'm not suggesting the speech itself is evil or corrupt. I'm saying the basis on which corporations (or unions) speak is fundamentally different than when individuals do it because the nature of their interests are fundamentally different. They have ONLY narrow, economic self-interest to look after. All other considerations are inappropriate. Individuals must balance their own self-interest against the wider interests of society. Corporations deliberately don't care, except in so far as they will look bad.

On the other matter, there is a fundamental difference between news corporations when they report the news and when they lobby on behalf of their own profit interests. Anytime a conflict of interest is possible in news reporting, journalistic ethics require full disclosure of those interests within the story. And those instances are relatively rare. Corporations will only invest money in speech where their interests are at stake.
 
,... Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.

I'm sure this logic is a shining example of at least one of these fallacies.

No time to dig it out right now.

My reponse to your comment (above) is to make you aware of the difference in reality between a vote and speech. No-one has to listen to a corporation 'speak.' So, their speech no matter how compelling and funded can be easily ignored.

Votes, on the other hand must be counted. Respected. Must be factored into policy decisions.
 
I'm still debating this issue personally and don't have a definite opinion.

Having been out in the wonderful world of work for well over two decades :roll: I have seen firsthand that corporations can be stone-cold beyotches and, in their own way, just as oppressive of their employees as an authoritarian government. "So Find another job" doesn't work so well when opportunities are limited and most corporations are acting in similar fashion.

On that note, I am somewhat open to the notion of government forcing corporations to treat their workers with a little decency... however there is a careful balance that has to be struck there. Too much well-meaning intervention will render a corp unprofitable, and jobs will be lost, raises and promotions curtailed, stocks fall and Bad Things Happen.

On the other hand I am a capitalist, and believe that for the most part the "free market" works best when impeded least. I suppose you could say I favor necessary but minimal regulation.

The notion of refusing to recognize corps as "persons", or of refusing to recognize their legal existence at all, has a certain appeal. I'm old enough to remember when most businesses around here were Mom and Pop stores, or sole proprietorships / limited partnerships, before all the big-box stuff moved in and made it hard to compete. Actually I had a small business of my own twenty years ago, in partnership with my father. We went under because we could not compete with the chain franchises.

OTOH, like most extreme measures I'm not sure whether eliminating or severely restricting corporations would actually do more harm than good. Without corporations there is no stock market, yes? That could have its good points, but we'd be talking about dismantling a couple centuries' worth of economic structure...what would take the place of it all? There are things that small businesses do better than big corps, but it is hard to imagine that we could do away with big corps entirely without some serious troubles.

Jury is still out for me on corporations...

G.
 
I'm sure this logic is a shining example of at least one of these fallacies.

No time to dig it out right now.

My reponse to your comment (above) is to make you aware of the difference in reality between a vote and speech. No-one has to listen to a corporation 'speak.' So, their speech no matter how compelling and funded can be easily ignored.

Votes, on the other hand must be counted. Respected. Must be factored into policy decisions.

There is a difference between votes and speech, it must be acknowledged. However, that may not be relevant to the main point (which still stands): That a right or privilege conferred on individuals does not automatically translate to being conferred on the entities those individuals band together to create. The right may be conferred, if it is judged to be advantageous to society, but it doesn't happen automatically.

No beneficial purpose is served by conferring on Corporations the right to free speech. And much harm is done by doing so.
 
No beneficial purpose is served by conferring on Corporations the right to free speech. And much harm is done by doing so.

When you speak in such absolutes, you leave yourself wide open to losing your credibility. As it only takes one exception to your (absolute) claim,... to prove it false.

You may be able to list several examples to support your claim that "much harm is done" by giving corporations the 'right to free speech.' And most of those examples will likely be 'sibjective.'

In contrast,... it would only take one example where granting a corporation the 'right to free speech' is 'beneficial' to destroy your above (absolute) claim.
 
When you speak in such absolutes, you leave yourself wide open to losing your credibility. As it only takes one exception to your (absolute) claim,... to prove it false.

You may be able to list several examples to support your claim that "much harm is done" by giving corporations the 'right to free speech.' And most of those examples will likely be 'sibjective.'

In contrast,... it would only take one example where granting a corporation the 'right to free speech' is 'beneficial' to destroy your above (absolute) claim.

So, go for it.

The point will still stand, though it may be weakened slightly. The point doesn't require an absolute in order to be valid. If it did, I would have been much more cautious about using one. And I really don't think I'll lose much sleep over the vanishingly small hit to my credibility, but thanks anyway.
 
That doesn't fly, the actors etc, are exercising their rights to free speech.
They just happened to be paid for it.

Being paid makes no difference.

Okay, so we're in agreement. GM can pay me $25 million to film and distribute a whole bunch of ads supporting its preferred candidate. GM is not speaking, they're simply giving me money while I exercise my right to free speech.

The parishioners own the church collectively but if the church was banned, it could infringe on their individual right to practice freely.

Each parishioner could practice their religion on their own, but they have come together and formed a church. The existence of that church makes their religious practice simpler and more beneficial. By banning the church, the government would be forbidding them from exercising their right to practice as a group. The fact that the individuals could continue to practice their religion on their own does not excuse this constitutional violation.

Each individual could exercise free speech on their own, but they have come together and formed a corporation. The existence of that corporation makes their speech simpler and more beneficial. By banning the corporation from speaking, the government would be forbidding them from exercising their right to speak as a group. The fact that the individuals could continue to exercise their speech on their own does not excuse this constitutional violation.
 
Okay, so we're in agreement. GM can pay me $25 million to film and distribute a whole bunch of ads supporting its preferred candidate. GM is not speaking, they're simply giving me money while I exercise my right to free speech.



Each parishioner could practice their religion on their own, but they have come together and formed a church. The existence of that church makes their religious practice simpler and more beneficial. By banning the church, the government would be forbidding them from exercising their right to practice as a group. The fact that the individuals could continue to practice their religion on their own does not excuse this constitutional violation.

Each individual could exercise free speech on their own, but they have come together and formed a corporation. The existence of that corporation makes their speech simpler and more beneficial. By banning the corporation from speaking, the government would be forbidding them from exercising their right to speak as a group. The fact that the individuals could continue to exercise their speech on their own does not excuse this constitutional violation.


Yes, exactly. I myself cannot afford to buy advertising time on TV, or lobby Congress; I lack the money and resources to do so alone. But I can donate money to the NRA, and along with the contributions of millions of people like me, they can lobby and buy airtime in my stead.
 
I suspect the net effect of this will be a growth in cynicism about all these institutions and a growing distrust of politics.

I agree. This will be largely due to the misconstrual of this decision and outright fearmongering coming from those on the left who are making a populist tack for the fall elections.
 
So, go for it.

The point will still stand, though it may be weakened slightly. The point doesn't require an absolute in order to be valid. If it did, I would have been much more cautious about using one. And I really don't think I'll lose much sleep over the vanishingly small hit to my credibility, but thanks anyway.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make... that the perceived 'benefits' of granting corporations the 'right to free speech' is 'subjective.'

Beyond that,... it's a matter of what is and what it not "Constitutional." And, I believe the Supreme Court has made the right decision in this case.

The way it's supposed to work under our Constitution is that we all have rights and freedoms to do pretty much what we want to,... so long as it conforms to our laws and the Constitution. Our laws, can not (must not) be made to circumvent or undermine the Constitution,... so laws of that nature inevitably will be challenged. (as was the case here)

In short, a corporation has all the rights a 'person' does to 'freely speak' unless and until that right can be justifiably denied by an act of 'due process.'
 
Well I think we should discuss this topic. I don't believe corporations should have the rights of a person. What's your take and why?

I believe that if non-profits can have a voice, then corporations should have a profit. If we take away this right from the corporations, then the non-profits should lose that right as well.

All, or none.
 
Back
Top Bottom