• 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
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

NoJingoLingo said:
And corporations can't speak so someone must do it for them. Maybe a CEO, who already has a right to free speech so why give him and additional right?
Click to expand...

Fine. If a corporation can't speak anyway, why not give it that "additional" right? Why did this case exist?
 
Look, if it's a "fiction" that corporations can speak, can spend money, etc., and the "truth" is that only individuals are physically capable of doing these things, and individuals are covered, then there's no issue, because it will only be individuals doing these things at any time.

You can't have it both ways.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
If the framers had intended corporations to have the rights our courts have given them over the years, and I should point out that judges aren't supposed to make laws, that's the job of Congress, regardless, don't you think they would have addressed them somewhere in the Constitution?

A couple of you have produced court cases that prove the courts have granted rights, that should only apply to people, to corporations. It's judicial activism.

Our country has slowly become a Corporatocracy and this latest affront is just another nail in the coffin of democracy and another boon for corporations.

The corporatists have no morality, allowing corporations to use company funds to influence elections is morally wrong because "the people" cannot compete financially and therefore lose control. Sure, we can vote but based on what information? Who decided what candidates to offer us to choose from? Corporate rule has destroyed this country.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If Corporations are just a group of people as some, myself included believe, then the individuals have their rights and abilites to vote, donate to whomever they want. Thus Corporations, a non-living thing HAS NO RIGHTS. Corporations shouldn't be able to donate, the individuals from the corp can. Otherwise some Americans are given more rights then others.All a corp is is a way to sidestep laws. They should be illegal. Adam Smith hated Corps..He knew there was no real Free Trade unless their was no Corps. If you love Capitalism then you must dislike Corps..that simple.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
Agreed. If Corporations are just a group of people as some, myself included believe, then the individuals have their rights and abilites to vote, donate to whomever they want. Thus Corporations, a non-living thing HAS NO RIGHTS. Corporations shouldn't be able to donate, the individuals from the corp can. Otherwise some Americans are given more rights then others.All a corp is is a way to sidestep laws. They should be illegal. Adam Smith hated Corps..He knew there was no real Free Trade unless their was no Corps. If you love Capitalism then you must dislike Corps..that simple.
Click to expand...

Hookay......
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
Show that. Show that the framers didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to corporations or to groups.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson:
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

It is the cases of the 19th century that established the concept of corporate personhood. The framers viewed corporations cautiously at best. As Carl Pope put it ".. once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it". Activist judges of the 19th century changed all that.

Even Rehnquist in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech. This week Sandra Day O'Conner has been vocal in her distaste for the court's decision saying that it is like 'ignoring an alligator in a bathtub'.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
Thomas Jefferson:
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

It is the cases of the 19th century that established the concept of corporate personhood. The framers viewed corporations cautiously at best. As Carl Pope put it ".. once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it". Activist judges of the 19th century changed all that.

Even Rehnquist in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech. This week Sandra Day O'Conner has been vocal in her distaste for the court's decision saying that it is like 'ignoring an alligator in a bathtub'.
Click to expand...

Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

At least IMO.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

At least IMO.
Click to expand...

But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.

The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals. I'm sure politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would do this, because its just good business. And from what I can tell, it would be perfectly legal, and the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

repeter said:
But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.
Click to expand...
I'm not by any means well versed in this area, but aren't there anti-slander laws? Or do they not apply to political ads?
repeter said:
The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals. I'm sure politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would do this, because its just good business. And from what I can tell, it would be perfectly legal, and the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the optimum situation, I just find it better than it was before.

Optimum solution IMO would be to separate politics and money completely. But that is impossible. So removing/severely limiting politics is the next possibility. Also impossible. Eliminating money? Possible, but it wouldn’t affect many of the deals which go down…favors could be argued as being a type of money, after all.

All in the name of eliminating corruption, these thoughts are. A nearly impossible goal.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
Thomas Jefferson:
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

It is the cases of the 19th century that established the concept of corporate personhood. The framers viewed corporations cautiously at best. As Carl Pope put it ".. once a state gave a corporation a privilege it constituted a contract that must be honored but also that the specific privileges granted came with its charter and did not extend beyond it". Activist judges of the 19th century changed all that.

Even Rehnquist in a 1978 case that restricted the right to limit corporate spending on ballot measures, dissented specifically because he did not feel that corporations were persons for purposes of political speech. This week Sandra Day O'Conner has been vocal in her distaste for the court's decision saying that it is like 'ignoring an alligator in a bathtub'.
Click to expand...

Jefferson didn't like political parties, either, but that -- and none of this -- means the Framers (of which Jefferson was NOT one, by the way) wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Corporations are going to fund politics/political ads either way. At least this way, the small corporations (5+ people employed?) can state their case. As it previously stood, only the big corporations who could figure out ways around laws and/or violate them without being noticed were really able to.

At least IMO.
Click to expand...
How would a small business have the funds necessary to buy political speech ( ads) to a degree that would compete with a large corporation?

Strikes me that we can engage in this banter about corporate personhood till the cows come home. At the end of the day, the results of the ascendance of corporate power have been so pernicious that it boggles my mind that anyone would be happy about furthering an already ghastly situation. I would suggest that all political spending be limited to the average income of an American, per year. Thats it. Across the board. Period
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
Jefferson didn't like political parties, either, but that -- and none of this -- means the Framers (of which Jefferson was NOT one, by the way) wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities.
Click to expand...

That is to say, none of it means the Framers wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities. Stupid dropped word. :doh
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
How would a small business have the funds necessary to buy political speech ( ads) to a degree that would compete with a large corporation?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they would.
But at least now they CAN.

As an example, suppose I was the owner of a small corporation, perhaps employing 25 people. I wanted to lobby for a political candidate who supported small business, but didn't have enough personal funds to do so, as they were all invested in my small corporation. Before this ruling, I would have no other option BUT to use personal funds. Now, I could tap into my companies advertising budget. If said money wasn't needed elsewhere.

Cassandra said:
Strikes me that we can engage in this banter about corporate personhood till the cows come home. At the end of the day, the results of the ascendance of corporate power have been so pernicious that it boggles my mind that anyone would be happy about furthering an already ghastly situation. I would suggest that all political spending be limited to the average income of an American, per year. That’s it. Across the board. Period
Click to expand...

There are already limits on political contributions, but we hear stories all the time about possible and actual violations.

I see no reason why the same would not follow for ads, and probably does.

As I understand it, the law regarding political ads, before this ruling, IMO favored large corporations who could use their multitude of lawyers to find ways around such laws, or who just didn't care and could pay people to violate them in such a way that it would be hard to track.

Now, smaller corporations can make their views known as well.
Of course, it just got easier for large corporations to influence political ads, but I think there are various laws regarding political ads and revealing who funded them. Such information could be useful to opponents of a candidate supported by a corporation.
 
Last edited:
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
I didn't say they would.
But at least now they CAN.

As an example, suppose I was the owner of a small corporation, perhaps employing 25 people. I wanted to lobby for a political candidate who supported small business, but didn't have enough personal funds to do so, as they were all invested in my small corporation. Before this ruling, I would have no other option BUT to use personal funds. Now, I could tap into my companies advertising budget. If said money wasn't needed elsewhere.



There are already limits on political contributions, but we hear stories all the time about possible and actual violations.

I see no reason why the same would not follow for ads, and probably does.

As I understand it, the law regarding political ads, before this ruling, IMO favored large corporations who could use their multitude of lawyers to find ways around such laws, or who just didn't care and could pay people to violate them in such a way that it would be hard to track.

Now, smaller corporations can make their views known as well.
Of course, it just got easier for large corporations to influence political ads, but I think there are various laws regarding political ads and revealing who funded them. Such information could be useful to opponents of a candidate supported by a corporation.
Click to expand...

Isn't it more of the same- that a consortium of big corporations will be ever more advantaged to swallow up their smaller brethren? The large corporations will just support the guy who will not enforce anti-trust regulations and will increase their ability to partake of regulatory capture vs the smaller business who will have no such advantage.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
Isn't it more of the same- that a consortium of big corporations will be ever more advantaged to swallow up their smaller brethren? The large corporations will just support the guy who will not enforce anti-trust regulations and will increase their ability to partake of regulatory capture vs the smaller business who will have no such advantage.
Click to expand...

Probably.

But the law previous to the recent ruling only exacerbated such imbalances, IMHO.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
Isn't it more of the same- that a consortium of big corporations will be ever more advantaged to swallow up their smaller brethren? The large corporations will just support the guy who will not enforce anti-trust regulations and will increase their ability to partake of regulatory capture vs the smaller business who will have no such advantage.
Click to expand...

If only we had, like, elections where voters could choose instead of corporations.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Harshaw said:
That is to say, none of it means the Framers wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities. Stupid dropped word. :doh
Click to expand...
The history of corporations suggests otherwise. Corporations were formed for a public purpose and at the pleasure of the sovereign; their charter was subject to revocation when they had served their purpose. The Framers would never have imagined that such grandiose power could be granted to corporations. The 1886 decision which appeared to announce that corporations were persons, was never argued. It simply makes no sense that they could have imagined the concept of corporate personhood.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

misterman said:
If only we had, like, elections where voters could choose instead of corporations.
Click to expand...

As you should know quite well, voting is not terribly meaningful if the choice is between corporate lackey red and corporate lackey blue. Take the health care debate....
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

Cassandra said:
As you should know quite well, voting is not terribly meaningful if the choice is between corporate lackey red and corporate lackey blue. Take the health care debate....
Click to expand...

Well if everyone had vast amounts of time on their hands to research all the candidates, we could probably nominate a candidate who wasn't a corporate lackey.

But he/she would become one shortly after entering office, most likely.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Groups do not have rights.
Click to expand...

No, they don't, but when individuals form a "group" this does alter their ability to exercise rights in unison. Essentially, you're saying that people should not be allowed to exercise their rights to the same end as other individuals. Why should the formation of a group preclude individuals from exercising their rights?
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Well if everyone had vast amounts of time on their hands to research all the candidates, we could probably nominate a candidate who wasn't a corporate lackey.

But he/she would become one shortly after entering office, most likely.
Click to expand...

yeh, I prefer the British method of managing elections- long on discussion, short on money, rapidly executed.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

The Mark said:
Well if everyone had vast amounts of time on their hands to research all the candidates, we could probably nominate a candidate who wasn't a corporate lackey.

But he/she would become one shortly after entering office, most likely.
Click to expand...

You can only hope and pray for someone who is able to go down to the level of other politicians so he.she can win, but is able to still maintain integrity, and maintains the right objectives. Means to an end I believe.
 
repeter said:
But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.
Click to expand...

This sounds absolutely ludicrous.

The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals. I'm sure politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would do this, because its just good business. And from what I can tell, it would be perfectly legal, and the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

What you're describing sounds a lot like honest services fraud, though I wouldn't get too attached to that law either. It's probably going to go the way of McCain-Feingold in a few months.
 
Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

repeter said:
But now, these big corporations can bluntly do what they did. And now we can't do anything about it. A perfect example of what they can do now, is what Jon Stewart was talking about, on Jan. 23 (I think). John Oliver represented a corporation, which aired a commerical about Jon Stewart, claiming he was a molestor, and other bull. The thing was, Stewart couldn't say anything about, because thats the nature of advertisement.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Stewart could sue for slander.

The problem I foresee, is politicians making deals with corporations to support certain bills in return for vicious campaigns against political rivals.
Click to expand...

That's democracy. Happens all the time.

the layman would be ill-suited to discern fact from fiction.
Click to expand...

Why beat around the bush? If the layman can't be trusted, just take away his vote.
 
Thats Democracy??? How so? Show me where Democracy allows favors for votes?

Democracy - Definition and More from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom