Originally posted by TerrierJack
His toaster is running for Congress!

If Charles Hynes can indict a ham sandwich, there's no reason my toaster can't run for Congress. I'm not sure it's 25 years old, though.

Originally posted by sh76
A corporation is not a stack of legal paper.

A corporation is the shareholders who own it. Whether it has a fictitious legal status for purposes of liability and tax filings is not the point.

If the corporation is the shareholders who own it why is there something called a corporation? Aren't there laws that apply specifically to corporations?

Originally posted by sh76
A toaster doesn't express ideas; and so it's freedom of expression is irrelevant.

The better analogy would be:

Is the keyboard I'm typing this on the same as the person who's manipulating it?

The analogy is senseless. People don't buy shares of stock in a for profit corporation to "express ideas". Corporations should be limited to whatever powers the body politic think useful and if they think the corporate form isn't useful at all they are free to abolish it without violating it's imaginary "rights".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If the corporation is the shareholders who own it why is there something called a corporation? Aren't there laws that apply specifically to corporations?

Of course there are. Those laws mostly relate to taxes and liabilities. Corporations are formed for purposes of management of a business and to take advantage of favorable rules in regards to taxes and liability. They aren't formed to relinquish the owners' freedom of speech.

A sole proprietor has freedom of expression. Doesn't he? Why shouldn't the shareholders of a corporation, on the corporation's behalf, also have freedom of expression?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The analogy is senseless. People don't buy shares of stock in a for profit corporation to "express ideas". Corporations should be limited to whatever powers the body politic think useful and if they think the corporate form isn't useful at all they are free to abolish it without violating it's imaginary "rights".

OF course they're free to abolish the corporate form. States can do that any time they choose. But as long as they do exist, what's wrong with extending to their management the right to express themselves on behalf of the corporation?

If the corporate form were abolished, then the businesses would reconstitute as partnerships or sole proprietorships (or LLCS, etc.). The partners would maintain their rights to express themselves on behalf of their businesses, though.

As for my "senseless" analogy; it's a lot less senseless than the toaster one.

Originally posted by sh76
Of course there are. Those laws mostly relate to taxes and liabilities. Corporations are formed for purposes of management of a business and to take advantage of favorable rules in regards to taxes and liability. They aren't formed to relinquish the owners' freedom of speech.

A sole proprietor has freedom of expression. Doesn't he? Why shouldn't the shareholders of a corporation, on the corporation's behalf, also have freedom of expression?

They do have freedom of expression as citizens. Why should owning a share increase my freedom of expression?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
They do have freedom of expression as citizens. Why should owning a share increase my freedom of expression?

How does allowing corporations to have the same freedom of expression as everyone else increase the shareholders' freedom of expression? Seems to me it just keeps their freedom of expression the same as it was.

Originally posted by sh76
Why would you want to neuter Goldman Sachs? And why shouldn't they have the same rights as regular humans? Who runs and owns them? Machines?

When did banks become evil? Investment banks may engage in unsavory tactics and I have no problem with reasonable regulations to prevent that. But, investment banks are also a key cog in the engine that allows the economy to flourish in the first place; not just the reason for the economy's decline.

Banks are not evil. But it's in the interests of banks to twist the rules in such a way as to acquire more wealth at the cost of society. For example, if the law is such that banks can freely deceive customers, it's in their interests but society as a whole is disadvantaged. It's not in the interests of people collectively to disadvantage people collectively. This is why corporations should have no voting power, either directly or indirectly.

Originally posted by sh76
How does allowing corporations to have the same freedom of expression as everyone else increase the shareholders' freedom of expression? Seems to me it just keeps their freedom of expression the same as it was.

No, because a shareholder has the influence of his vote (like anyone else) PLUS the influence (his part of) the corporation has, if the latter has any "vote". So the powerful shareholder actually has more of a say in the democratic process - it's institutionalized discrimination.

Originally posted by sh76
Of course there are. Those laws mostly relate to taxes and liabilities. Corporations are formed for purposes of management of a business and to take advantage of favorable rules in regards to taxes and liability. They aren't formed to relinquish the owners' freedom of speech.

A sole proprietor has freedom of expression. Doesn't he? Why shouldn't the shareholders of a corporation, on the corporation's behalf, also have freedom of expression?

At the very least, if a corporation is going to spend more than a trivial amount of money to speak on behalf of the shareholders, that corporation should have to get a majority of the shareholders to specifically approve of a specific advertisement or act of influence. Ideally, there should be unanimous consent to protect any shareholders who may disagree with the corporation's planned speech. Since this is unrealistic, the standard would have to be lower than this, but the minimum should be a simple majority vote.

Originally posted by sh76
How does allowing corporations to have the same freedom of expression as everyone else increase the shareholders' freedom of expression? Seems to me it just keeps their freedom of expression the same as it was.

So when you buy shares you lose your citizenship?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, because a shareholder has the influence of his vote (like anyone else) PLUS the influence (his part of) the corporation has, if the latter has any "vote". So the powerful shareholder actually has more of a say in the democratic process - it's institutionalized discrimination.

Of course corporations don't get to vote. No one that I know of ever argued that they should.

Okay, let's try it this way:

Person X has $1,000,000 to burn.

Can person X spend the $1,000,000 on TV ads advocating draconian anti-immigration polices?

Yes, he can, at least under US law.

Can person X instead spend the $1,000,000 on purchasing shares of ABC Corp and then using his voting power in the corporation to try to get ABC Corp to run ads advocating draconian anti-immigration polices?

What's the net increase in Person X's influence that is caused by the corporate form here?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
At the very least, if a corporation is going to spend more than a trivial amount of money to speak on behalf of the shareholders, that corporation should have to get a majority of the shareholders to specifically approve of a specific advertisement or act of influence.

Let's assume this rule is enacted. Does that mean you agree with me?

If so, that means you agree with me. That proposed rule is a minor tweak. Make that rule and they'll be sending out these consent forms with the yearly proxy solicitations. You'll barely notice the difference.

Originally posted by sh76
Of course corporations don't get to vote. No one that I know of ever argued that they should.

Okay, let's try it this way:

Person X has $1,000,000 to burn.

Can person X spend the $1,000,000 on TV ads advocating draconian anti-immigration polices?

Yes, he can, at least under US law.

Can person X instead spend the $1,000,000 on purchasing shares o ...[text shortened]...
What's the net increase in Person X's influence that is caused by the corporate form here?

Well, you should look at where you start off in your reasoning. Should a rich person have significantly more to say about politics than a poor person? I don't think so. It would be much better if every political party gets a fixed amount of money to run their party (within reasonable limits so that people don't make fake parties to get the money, so requiring say X signatures) and rely on media coverage and volunteers for everything else.

A government should represent people, not money.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, you should look at where you start off in your reasoning. Should a rich person have significantly more to say about politics than a poor person? I don't think so. It would be much better if every political party gets a fixed amount of money to run their party (within reasonable limits so that people don't make fake parties to get the money, so req ...[text shortened]... verage and volunteers for everything else.

A government should represent people, not money.

A reasonable position, certainly, but quite beside the point of the corporation vs. individual dichotomy (if there really is one).

Under US law, people have the right, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to unlimited political speech. There are limitations on financing political campaigns. But for "issue" advertisements and campaigns, there are essentially no limits.

Given that premise, there is no difference between a corporate shareholder exercising his political speech on behalf of a corporation and an individual exercising his political speech in his own capacity.

To outlaw using cash to propagate a political message in the US would require either a new Constitutional Amendment or a radical change in First Amendment jurisprudence as it applies to political speech.