• 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 v. individual Speech

C

clapee

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
167
Reaction score
29
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since Citizens United, there has been a public controversy over the protections of commercial speech versus individual speech.

The limit of individual speech is basically that one cannot incite violence against another or others or incite a riot or riotous behavior. The basic idea is that an individual should not do harm against another or others, and speech aimed to do physical harm is rightfully regulated.

It has been said that corporate speech can be more heavily regulated. On its face, that may appear to be true. However, usually the commercial speech that is prohibited has been deemed harmful to others. For example, the FCC prohibits curse words and nudity from public broadcast so as not to subject children to such things, the premise being exposure to such things is harmful to children.

It would appear, then, the justification of regulating commercial speech and individual speech is the same. The difference might be said is the potential impact of commercial speech versus individual speech.

And so, that begs the question, why ought the government be allowed to regulate commercial political speech moreso than individual political speech? Corporations are nothing more than a collection of persons who own and operate a concern. How can one differentiate a collection of persons and an individual? Even if one can differentiate, what justifies that differentiation with regard to regulating political speech?

And, before we get into rote responses that money in politics is bad, I would state at the outset that such a sentiment is merely conclusory. I do not accept as axiomatic that money in politics is bad. What specifically about money in politics is bad?
 
Great topic. I'd like to know also. Are not News outlets corporations likewise? And yet the 1st amendment was particularly directed to ensure it's freedom of speech.
 
clapee said:
Since Citizens United, there has been a public controversy over the protections of commercial speech versus individual speech.

The limit of individual speech is basically that one cannot incite violence against another or others or incite a riot or riotous behavior. The basic idea is that an individual should not do harm against another or others, and speech aimed to do physical harm is rightfully regulated.

It has been said that corporate speech can be more heavily regulated. On its face, that may appear to be true. However, usually the commercial speech that is prohibited has been deemed harmful to others. For example, the FCC prohibits curse words and nudity from public broadcast so as not to subject children to such things, the premise being exposure to such things is harmful to children.

It would appear, then, the justification of regulating commercial speech and individual speech is the same. The difference might be said is the potential impact of commercial speech versus individual speech.

And so, that begs the question, why ought the government be allowed to regulate commercial political speech moreso than individual political speech? Corporations are nothing more than a collection of persons who own and operate a concern. How can one differentiate a collection of persons and an individual? Even if one can differentiate, what justifies that differentiation with regard to regulating political speech?

And, before we get into rote responses that money in politics is bad, I would state at the outset that such a sentiment is merely conclusory. I do not accept as axiomatic that money in politics is bad. What specifically about money in politics is bad?
Click to expand...

Folks incorporate to distance themselves from liability.

So when the corporation screws up they can say "It wasn't me, it was the corporation.

Bit when it comes to using the corporation's money to invest in polititcal campaigns then it's "We ARE the corporation".

There's a disconnect there somewhere.
 
clapee said:
Since Citizens United, there has been a public controversy over the protections of commercial speech versus individual speech.

The limit of individual speech is basically that one cannot incite violence against another or others or incite a riot or riotous behavior. The basic idea is that an individual should not do harm against another or others, and speech aimed to do physical harm is rightfully regulated.

It has been said that corporate speech can be more heavily regulated. On its face, that may appear to be true. However, usually the commercial speech that is prohibited has been deemed harmful to others. For example, the FCC prohibits curse words and nudity from public broadcast so as not to subject children to such things, the premise being exposure to such things is harmful to children.

It would appear, then, the justification of regulating commercial speech and individual speech is the same. The difference might be said is the potential impact of commercial speech versus individual speech.

And so, that begs the question, why ought the government be allowed to regulate commercial political speech moreso than individual political speech? Corporations are nothing more than a collection of persons who own and operate a concern. How can one differentiate a collection of persons and an individual? Even if one can differentiate, what justifies that differentiation with regard to regulating political speech?

And, before we get into rote responses that money in politics is bad, I would state at the outset that such a sentiment is merely conclusory. I do not accept as axiomatic that money in politics is bad. What specifically about money in politics is bad?
Click to expand...

There has been no public controversy. Only the anti-American left have become completely irrational on the subject. There is also no such thing as "commercial" speech, just like there is no such thing as "corporate" speech. There is only individual speech. Individuals are held accountable for what they say or write, corporations are not.
 
What if...? said:
Folks incorporate to distance themselves from liability.

So when the corporation screws up they can say "It wasn't me, it was the corporation.

Bit when it comes to using the corporation's money to invest in polititcal campaigns then it's "We ARE the corporation".

There's a disconnect there somewhere.
Click to expand...

There is no disconnect. The corporation is merely acting as a facilitator to those who wish to make political contributions. It is still contributions from individuals expressing their individual right to free speech, even if it is paid out as a single contribution by the corporation. Corporations have no inherent rights, which means they have no voice. Only individuals have a voice.
 
Glitch said:
There is no disconnect. The corporation is merely acting as a facilitator to those who wish to make political contributions. It is still contributions from individuals expressing their individual right to free speech, even if it is paid out as a single contribution by the corporation. Corporations have no inherent rights, which means they have no voice. Only individuals have a voice.
Click to expand...

You're blurring the line between a separate segregated fund pooling individual contributions and the use of corporate treasury dollars to influence elections. These are not the same thing. If "only individuals have a voice" then corporate treasury funds should not be allowed for electioneering purposes.
 
money isn't speech. the decision was incorrect, and needs to be reversed once there are fewer right wingers on the court.
 
Greenbeard said:
You're blurring the line between a separate segregated fund pooling individual contributions and the use of corporate treasury dollars to influence elections. These are not the same thing. If "only individuals have a voice" then corporate treasury funds should not be allowed for electioneering purposes.
Click to expand...

There is no line to blur. Individuals can choose to use their own money, or the board of directors can choose to use corporate funds. Of course the board of directors also has a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to account for the corporation assets that individuals don't have, but it is still free speech. If stockholders are not happy with the political contributions being made - on behalf of the stockholders - by the board of directors, the board can always be replaced. It is the individual voices of every contributing stockholder when corporations make political contributions. As I said, legal constructs have no voice. They are merely facilitating for individuals.
 
Glitch said:
There is no line to blur. Individuals can choose to use their own money, or the board of directors can choose to use corporate funds. Of course the board of directors also has a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to account for the corporation assets that individuals don't have, but it is still free speech. If stockholders are not happy with the political contributions being made - on behalf of the stockholders - by the board of directors, the board can always be replaced. It is the individual voices of every contributing stockholder when corporations make political contributions. As I said, legal constructs have no voice. They are merely facilitating for individuals.
Click to expand...

When need to invoke naive theories of delegated decision-making and break out corporate governance bylaws to support this misguided argument, you’ve lost the beat on the “individuals expressing their individual right to free speech” talking point.
 
Helix said:
money isn't speech. the decision was incorrect, and needs to be reversed once there are fewer right wingers on the court.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The real goal should be full disclosure. No more secret money men hiding behind PAC's, etc.
 
Glitch said:
There has been no public controversy. Only the anti-American left have become completely irrational on the subject...
Click to expand...

What has been the attitude of the pro-American left and anti-American right ?
 
Glitch said:
There is no disconnect. The corporation is merely acting as a facilitator to those who wish to make political contributions. It is still contributions from individuals expressing their individual right to free speech, even if it is paid out as a single contribution by the corporation. Corporations have no inherent rights, which means they have no voice. Only individuals have a voice.
Click to expand...

Which individuals?

Corporations are mech suits for status heads. They amplify power and if not destroyed are immortal.

The wealth they wield often exceeds that of most individuals in the donor class.

And like the rest of the donor class they invest in candidates that will increase their profits.

And their profits don't necessarily mean what's best for anybody else. Quite the contrary in many cases.

Do you really think that they don't expect anything in return from those legislators who spend half their time in office begging them for money? That would be stupid considering that congress does what money wants or doesn't do what money doesn't want. Statistically.

So we can discuss this with the manufactured narrative you used, or we can look at the reality and decide whether money should decide what happens in America or not.
 
Drawdown said:
I disagree. The real goal should be full disclosure. No more secret money men hiding behind PAC's, etc.
Click to expand...

The whole IRS debacle was about donor anonymity.

And congress does what donors want over what regular citizens want.

So I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
Glitch said:
There has been no public controversy. Only the anti-American left have become completely irrational on the subject. There is also no such thing as "commercial" speech, just like there is no such thing as "corporate" speech. There is only individual speech. Individuals are held accountable for what they say or write, corporations are not.
Click to expand...

Well, considering much of what passes for speech is the product of the manipulation industries I would say there is such a thing as commercial speech.
 
Drawdown said:
I disagree. The real goal should be full disclosure. No more secret money men hiding behind PAC's, etc.
Click to expand...

i agree with the second part completely. however, i don't agree that money is speech.
 
Glitch said:
There is no disconnect. The corporation is merely acting as a facilitator to those who wish to make political contributions. It is still contributions from individuals expressing their individual right to free speech, even if it is paid out as a single contribution by the corporation. Corporations have no inherent rights, which means they have no voice. Only individuals have a voice.
Click to expand...

That corporation just represents the will of the owners and stockholders.
 
Helix said:
money isn't speech. the decision was incorrect, and needs to be reversed once there are fewer right wingers on the court.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on fewer right wing on the court any time soon. Elections have consequences. President Trump will most likely seat one, maybe two, SCOTUS judges.

I don't see much difference between a group of citizens getting together, pooling their money, forming groups like NAACP, CORE, environmental, gay,and forming PAC's, and groups of people getting together, forming a corporation, pooling their money, and contributing to causes that collectively affect them.

Don't kid yourself. Money is speech.
 
jimbo said:
I wouldn't count on fewer right wing on the court any time soon. Elections have consequences. President Trump will most likely seat one, maybe two, SCOTUS judges.

I don't see much difference between a group of citizens getting together, pooling their money, forming groups like NAACP, CORE, environmental, gay,and forming PAC's, and groups of people getting together, forming a corporation, pooling their money, and contributing to causes that collectively affect them.

Don't kid yourself. Money is speech.
Click to expand...

money is not speech. i hope that the backlash that King Tangface generates is lasting. the country really needs to take a different direction, IMO.
 
Helix said:
money is not speech. i hope that the backlash that King Tangface generates is lasting. the country really needs to take a different direction, IMO.
Click to expand...

The country did take a different direction. That's what anti Trumpers are pissed about.
 
jimbo said:
The country did take a different direction. That's what anti Trumpers are pissed about.
Click to expand...

it took a different direction like choosing to experiment with meth is taking a different direction.
 
Isn't this just making larlge corporate donations effectively tax-free, while all grassroots donations are after tax? I haven't looked into it much, may be a silly question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom