It appears that they will do this in spite of Vermont’s having lax gun-control laws, which will no doubt cause overwrought hand-wringing by certain individuals.
Corporations are artificial entities, created by state law. I agree that a corporation cannot, and should not, enjoy all of the rights of real persons. Citizens United was wrongly decided.
<
p>However, there is is a very good reason to apply part of the Fifth Amendment to corporations. Corporations, other than charities, are ultimately owned by individuals. If corporate property is taken without due process of law, or taken for public use without just compensation, then the shareholders have had their property taken from them as surely as if it was removed directly from their own hands.
Similar to the health care debate, the question follows: If corporations aren’t legally persons, what are they? Corporate personhood doesn’t make much sense, but from where will the replacement legal structure come, and what does it look like?
<
p>Mind you, something like this has next to no chance of passing in our “democracy”, even if it is reflective of people’s will. It would be interesting to see something like this put on a California referendum…
My understanding is that corporations are creatures of the state and per their charters are granted certain rights and responsibilities of organization. I think it is reasonable to apply private property rights to corporations in terms of due process and just compensation, but need not be granted the civil rights of individuals. How much leeway does the state have to revoke a granted charter? Would that be too much like a bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or infringing on the obligation of a contract. It seems that a condition of a charter could be that the corporation will not donate to campaigns, for example. As far as I’m concerned there is no legal right to form a corporation or for a corporation to exist, so the state would be well within its rights to attach strings to corporate privileges.
…to distinguish between non-profit and for-profit corporations. I realize both “incorporate”, but when I say corporation I mean big business with shareholders, not do-gooding community organizations.
That assumes the answer to the debated question; Citizens United was a first amendment case. Indeed, Citizens United IS a nonprofit corporation.
<
p>If a corporation is a “person” that enjoys constitutional protections, then it has certain rights under the First Amendment. If it isn’t, it doesn’t. Same thing for nonprofits.
<
p>So, if General Electric does not enjoy any protection under the first amendment, then neither does the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. That means that the federal or a state government could prohibit Sierra or Greenpeace from weighing in on, say, environmental issues, and this would be no issue under the 1st Amendment, because Sierra has zero right to free speech or press in any event.
<
p>Your second sentence is, I think, a better crystallization of the “liberal” problem with Citizens United, and the money/speech cases that precede it.
<
p>The problem here is: how does any organization “speak” except by spending to do it, either by paying the employee to speak, purchasing air time, or even by using the time donated by an individual? If Sierra is nominally free to express its views on political issues, but is prohibited from spending any money or money’s worth on such expression, it would still be effectively censored.
The Vermont legislature could simply limit Corporation’s spending on idea and speech approved in advance by the DNC. No 1st amendment issue if the corp isn’t a person.
…saying the likes of Sierra Club, the purpose of which is advocacy, has greater speech than GE, the purpose of which is to make a profit. We should also be able to regulate advocacy organizations just like campaigns and say any group that wants to do this must raise only from individuals, possibly with caps, and disclose their donors.
So, there is a brand new advocacy nonprofit, called “RAELN” (Repeal All Environmental Laws Now). They are quite fortunate to receive several hundred million dollars from each of GE, Shell, Exxon, BP, etc., etc., etc. Remember, the very thing that has you all so upset, Citizens United, is a nonprofit advocacy group.
<
p>I would be thrilled to regulate advocacy organizations; I’m annoyed by the mailers, the internet ads, and the TV commercials in election years. I would love to no longer be troubled by them. But that would be a rather significant departure from more than 2 centuries of American political tradition.
<
p>You guys seem pretty comfortable with allowing the government to regulate political speech based purely on source and (worse) content. This is remarkable given that the government seems to be controlled by your opposition more than it is controlled by your allies.
…for exactly the reasons you cite. Citizens United SHOULD be able to advocate for its prefered candidates. Did you miss the part where I suggested regulating even advocacy groups? I would suggest that groups like RAELN only be allowed to take individual contributions, not from the corporations you suggest. We could put caps on the amount an individual could contribute like we do for campaigns and require disclosure like we do for campaigns. I would not limit the amount of output from these groups by law; those limits would only be determined by limitation of resources.
But we have to be careful with those contributions, as some of those individuals might have ulterior motives. So we should put a cap on the amount any individual can contribute, but the individual can only qualify to contribute by obtaining a permit from the federal government. In order to qualify for the permit, the individual must make a detailed financial disclosure, including all bank statements and cancelled checks, and submit to an FBI background check. Since that paperwork costs money, the individual will have to pay a permit fee of a few hundred dollars in order to obtain the contribution permit.
We already cap individual contributions to campaigns. I’m just suggesting we apply the same rules for any organization other than the official campaign that promotes or critiques candidates. The whole permit thing is silly and you know it.
Stripping corporate entities of rights would be rife with problems– at least at it was suggested above, expression by corporate entities would be regulated depending on what the entity is and what it was expressing.
<
p>The permit thing is to demonstrate that a conclusion that money is not “speech” is also rife with problems. If money isn’t speech, then any form of expression that isn’t no-cost can be regulated or banned outright.
<
p> I understand that individuals are already subject to a cap– but so are corporations. I happen to think that those caps pose first amendment problems, but that is for a different thread.
<
p>Fundamentally, all a corporation is is a group of people that have organized themselves. It doesn’t matter if it is a neighborhood group advocating for the installation of speed bumps, or investors joining to engage in a business enterprise. Thus, in order to conclude that a corporation lacks certain rights, one must explain why a group of individuals acting in concert somehow have fewer rights than each one of them has individually.
I would argue that we can regulate who can contribute and how much, but not what the receiving group does with the money once they have it. I’m not reinventing the wheel here. I’d be happy to get rid of PACs while we’re at it. We have federal caps at $2300 per individual per election. All the law would have to do is say that if the Sierra Club wants to run ads saying vote for John Doe because we like his environmental stances, they could only raise individual contributions not to exceed $2300 in a given year and disclose who gave them those contributions. This really isn’t hard.
Suppose we stipulate that a corporation is a person, and that spending is its only effective form of speech.
<
p>How then shall that corporation be held accountable for its actions?
<
p>Personhood entails responsibility as well as rights. An important balance to the right of free speech is the reality of accountability for the results of that speech. The government cannot block my ability to publicly describe my employer as a “moron”. Should I do so, I can also expect to be fired.
<
p>Downthread, you argue:
Fundamentally, all a corporation is is a group of people that have organized themselves.
<
p>It seems to me that this accurate summary exposes the problem: one purpose of this organized group is to insulate those people from the results of the corporate actions that result.
<
p>What if the members and contributors of an organization that, for example, sponsors a media piece calling for a “Second Amendment solution” to a “troublesome” government official could be held personally liable for civil actions brought when that official is shot?
<
p>I appreciate your concerns about limiting corporate “speech”. What, in your view, is an appropriate way to ensure corporate accountability for that speech?
You are correct that a corporation provides a vehicle for individuals to organize themselves, and limits liability of the members/shareholders/partners to the value of their investment.
<
p>That is because the organized group is generally treated as being distinct from the individuals that make up the group. What you, she, and I do together is attributable to the group and not to you, me or her individually. In most instances, that insulation is a non-issue. If the corporation is established purely as a means of insulation of the individuals from liability, there are mechanisms for “piercing the corporate veil” — holding the individuals personally liable for corporate liability–that have been a part of corporate law for decades.
<
p>I’m a little uncomfortable with your example, because I’m not sure what the “consequences” are that you are looking for, as what you have described is first amendment protected speech whether spoken by an individual or a group. I suppose that there could be tort liability for libel, or even if someone can make a sufficient causal connection with Speech A and Violent Act B, either of which if applicable would bring the “veil piercing” issues in.
<
p>I also suppose that there could be criminal liability imposed on the individuals who actually act on behalf of the corp under (grossly unconstitutional, in my view) statutes that criminalize speech that advocate on behalf of any organization listed by the government as foreign and “terrorist.” I don’t think there is any need that the speech be in support of something that is actually an organization, or foreign, or terrorist, but merely that it be labeled such by the government.
Licking and Porter Townships in Pennsylvania, however, made history –by adopting ordinances that eliminate a corporation’s ability to claim any constitutional rights as a “person”.
<
p>As to what a Corporation is:
<
p>
PERSONALITY DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST:
– World Health Organization ICD-10
– Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV
[ ] Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
[ ] Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
[ ] Reckless disregard for the safety of others
[ ] Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit
[ ] Incapacity to experience guilt
[ ] Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior
Subject: The Corporation
Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Psychopath
Hare: They would have all the characteristics, and in fact, in many respects, thecorporation of that sort is the proto-typical psychopath.
<
p>The film precedes that diagnosis with point by point examples. A corporation is an association that exists also as a legal entity (in that it has governance and can contract, etc.). The problem is that this entity, although made up of individuals, acts (collectively) in ways that are removed from our individual ethical instincts. The psychological ‘distance’ that this association creates for us allows the association to operate ‘distantly’ from our ethical instincts.
<
p>There is no stopping commercial associations like this, but giving them ‘personhood’ was a terrible mistake.
Just curious. There doesn’t seem to me to be any incompatibility between having loose, or no, laws on gun ownership and, simultaneously, treating corporations as a form of property, rather than as people.
Corporations are artificial entities, created by state law. I agree that a corporation cannot, and should not, enjoy all of the rights of real persons. Citizens United was wrongly decided.
<
p>However, there is is a very good reason to apply part of the Fifth Amendment to corporations. Corporations, other than charities, are ultimately owned by individuals. If corporate property is taken without due process of law, or taken for public use without just compensation, then the shareholders have had their property taken from them as surely as if it was removed directly from their own hands.
<
p>
Similar to the health care debate, the question follows: If corporations aren’t legally persons, what are they? Corporate personhood doesn’t make much sense, but from where will the replacement legal structure come, and what does it look like?
<
p>Mind you, something like this has next to no chance of passing in our “democracy”, even if it is reflective of people’s will. It would be interesting to see something like this put on a California referendum…
My understanding is that corporations are creatures of the state and per their charters are granted certain rights and responsibilities of organization. I think it is reasonable to apply private property rights to corporations in terms of due process and just compensation, but need not be granted the civil rights of individuals. How much leeway does the state have to revoke a granted charter? Would that be too much like a bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or infringing on the obligation of a contract. It seems that a condition of a charter could be that the corporation will not donate to campaigns, for example. As far as I’m concerned there is no legal right to form a corporation or for a corporation to exist, so the state would be well within its rights to attach strings to corporate privileges.
Certainly nonprofits should enjoy some civil rights beyond property rights; the First Amendment guarantees it.
<
p>I think the doctrine of money as speech is at least as pernicious as that of corporations as persons.
…to distinguish between non-profit and for-profit corporations. I realize both “incorporate”, but when I say corporation I mean big business with shareholders, not do-gooding community organizations.
is a 501(c) corporation.
That assumes the answer to the debated question; Citizens United was a first amendment case. Indeed, Citizens United IS a nonprofit corporation.
<
p>If a corporation is a “person” that enjoys constitutional protections, then it has certain rights under the First Amendment. If it isn’t, it doesn’t. Same thing for nonprofits.
<
p>So, if General Electric does not enjoy any protection under the first amendment, then neither does the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. That means that the federal or a state government could prohibit Sierra or Greenpeace from weighing in on, say, environmental issues, and this would be no issue under the 1st Amendment, because Sierra has zero right to free speech or press in any event.
<
p>Your second sentence is, I think, a better crystallization of the “liberal” problem with Citizens United, and the money/speech cases that precede it.
<
p>The problem here is: how does any organization “speak” except by spending to do it, either by paying the employee to speak, purchasing air time, or even by using the time donated by an individual? If Sierra is nominally free to express its views on political issues, but is prohibited from spending any money or money’s worth on such expression, it would still be effectively censored.
You’re framing free speech as an all or nothing issue. Surely it isn’t.
The Vermont legislature could simply limit Corporation’s spending on idea and speech approved in advance by the DNC. No 1st amendment issue if the corp isn’t a person.
…saying the likes of Sierra Club, the purpose of which is advocacy, has greater speech than GE, the purpose of which is to make a profit. We should also be able to regulate advocacy organizations just like campaigns and say any group that wants to do this must raise only from individuals, possibly with caps, and disclose their donors.
So, there is a brand new advocacy nonprofit, called “RAELN” (Repeal All Environmental Laws Now). They are quite fortunate to receive several hundred million dollars from each of GE, Shell, Exxon, BP, etc., etc., etc. Remember, the very thing that has you all so upset, Citizens United, is a nonprofit advocacy group.
<
p>I would be thrilled to regulate advocacy organizations; I’m annoyed by the mailers, the internet ads, and the TV commercials in election years. I would love to no longer be troubled by them. But that would be a rather significant departure from more than 2 centuries of American political tradition.
<
p>You guys seem pretty comfortable with allowing the government to regulate political speech based purely on source and (worse) content. This is remarkable given that the government seems to be controlled by your opposition more than it is controlled by your allies.
…for exactly the reasons you cite. Citizens United SHOULD be able to advocate for its prefered candidates. Did you miss the part where I suggested regulating even advocacy groups? I would suggest that groups like RAELN only be allowed to take individual contributions, not from the corporations you suggest. We could put caps on the amount an individual could contribute like we do for campaigns and require disclosure like we do for campaigns. I would not limit the amount of output from these groups by law; those limits would only be determined by limitation of resources.
But we have to be careful with those contributions, as some of those individuals might have ulterior motives. So we should put a cap on the amount any individual can contribute, but the individual can only qualify to contribute by obtaining a permit from the federal government. In order to qualify for the permit, the individual must make a detailed financial disclosure, including all bank statements and cancelled checks, and submit to an FBI background check. Since that paperwork costs money, the individual will have to pay a permit fee of a few hundred dollars in order to obtain the contribution permit.
We already cap individual contributions to campaigns. I’m just suggesting we apply the same rules for any organization other than the official campaign that promotes or critiques candidates. The whole permit thing is silly and you know it.
Stripping corporate entities of rights would be rife with problems– at least at it was suggested above, expression by corporate entities would be regulated depending on what the entity is and what it was expressing.
<
p>The permit thing is to demonstrate that a conclusion that money is not “speech” is also rife with problems. If money isn’t speech, then any form of expression that isn’t no-cost can be regulated or banned outright.
<
p> I understand that individuals are already subject to a cap– but so are corporations. I happen to think that those caps pose first amendment problems, but that is for a different thread.
<
p>Fundamentally, all a corporation is is a group of people that have organized themselves. It doesn’t matter if it is a neighborhood group advocating for the installation of speed bumps, or investors joining to engage in a business enterprise. Thus, in order to conclude that a corporation lacks certain rights, one must explain why a group of individuals acting in concert somehow have fewer rights than each one of them has individually.
I would argue that we can regulate who can contribute and how much, but not what the receiving group does with the money once they have it. I’m not reinventing the wheel here. I’d be happy to get rid of PACs while we’re at it. We have federal caps at $2300 per individual per election. All the law would have to do is say that if the Sierra Club wants to run ads saying vote for John Doe because we like his environmental stances, they could only raise individual contributions not to exceed $2300 in a given year and disclose who gave them those contributions. This really isn’t hard.
Suppose we stipulate that a corporation is a person, and that spending is its only effective form of speech.
<
p>How then shall that corporation be held accountable for its actions?
<
p>Personhood entails responsibility as well as rights. An important balance to the right of free speech is the reality of accountability for the results of that speech. The government cannot block my ability to publicly describe my employer as a “moron”. Should I do so, I can also expect to be fired.
<
p>Downthread, you argue:
<
p>It seems to me that this accurate summary exposes the problem: one purpose of this organized group is to insulate those people from the results of the corporate actions that result.
<
p>What if the members and contributors of an organization that, for example, sponsors a media piece calling for a “Second Amendment solution” to a “troublesome” government official could be held personally liable for civil actions brought when that official is shot?
<
p>I appreciate your concerns about limiting corporate “speech”. What, in your view, is an appropriate way to ensure corporate accountability for that speech?
You are correct that a corporation provides a vehicle for individuals to organize themselves, and limits liability of the members/shareholders/partners to the value of their investment.
<
p>That is because the organized group is generally treated as being distinct from the individuals that make up the group. What you, she, and I do together is attributable to the group and not to you, me or her individually. In most instances, that insulation is a non-issue. If the corporation is established purely as a means of insulation of the individuals from liability, there are mechanisms for “piercing the corporate veil” — holding the individuals personally liable for corporate liability–that have been a part of corporate law for decades.
<
p>I’m a little uncomfortable with your example, because I’m not sure what the “consequences” are that you are looking for, as what you have described is first amendment protected speech whether spoken by an individual or a group. I suppose that there could be tort liability for libel, or even if someone can make a sufficient causal connection with Speech A and Violent Act B, either of which if applicable would bring the “veil piercing” issues in.
<
p>I also suppose that there could be criminal liability imposed on the individuals who actually act on behalf of the corp under (grossly unconstitutional, in my view) statutes that criminalize speech that advocate on behalf of any organization listed by the government as foreign and “terrorist.” I don’t think there is any need that the speech be in support of something that is actually an organization, or foreign, or terrorist, but merely that it be labeled such by the government.
The Corporation.
<
p>Transcript Part 1
Transcript Part 2
<
p>
<
p>As to what a Corporation is:
<
p>
<
p>The film precedes that diagnosis with point by point examples. A corporation is an association that exists also as a legal entity (in that it has governance and can contract, etc.). The problem is that this entity, although made up of individuals, acts (collectively) in ways that are removed from our individual ethical instincts. The psychological ‘distance’ that this association creates for us allows the association to operate ‘distantly’ from our ethical instincts.
<
p>There is no stopping commercial associations like this, but giving them ‘personhood’ was a terrible mistake.
Just curious. There doesn’t seem to me to be any incompatibility between having loose, or no, laws on gun ownership and, simultaneously, treating corporations as a form of property, rather than as people.
to this comment.