Yes there is, because a person is anything that can enter into a contract. What definition of “person” are you using? Please, define person for me.
*“To do this exploratory committee, I had to give away my Super PAC,” Colbert told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview Sunday morning on “This Week.” “That’s my baby. Do you know how hard it is to give away a baby? Now imagine if that baby had a whole lot of money. Imagine how much harder that would be to give away.” *
I don’t know if anyone saw this Sunday morning but it was classic. I’m not sure Stephanopoulos knew how seriously to take Colbert, which kinda surprised me.
So let the representatives of a corporation enter into a contract, or allow contracts to be done for corporations. No need to give the corporation personhood.
That’s like saying you want to punish a corporation, but instead of taking away its assets, or firing its people, you give it personhood so you can throw it in jail. They’re missing the easiest and most efficient way and that’s simply to allow corporate entities to enter into contracts.
Governments enter into contracts all the time. Treaties are basically that, an agreement between two or more countries. Nobody is saying countries are people. And nobody is saying American needs to be a person in order to sign a contract, we all know it is the people running the country who are entering into the contract, signing the paperwork, and enforcing the laws.
Do you believe that ANY organization has a free speech right? The NRA or the ACLU? If not, why does one person have a free speech right, but not two or more?
If yes, then what is it about the word “corporation” that makes their speech so bad? If they were called “business thingys” or “groups” or “tree barks” could they then have the appointed leaders of that group agree to spend money on behalf of the group for free speech purposes?
When the organization can speak for itself, without using individual human puppets, maybe. I’ve yet to hear an organization speak; would you link some examples?
Based on the logic being put forth Random House Publishing can be prohibited from publishing books the government doesn’t like, the New York Times Corporation can be sanctioned for writing articles the government doesn’t like, the NRA could be sanctioned for publishing newsletters the government doesn’t like, the ACLU could be prohibitted from running TV or radio ads, and the KKK and the National Right to Life Committee could be prevented from organizing marches because the are “corporations” not “people” and therefore aren’t “protected” by the Constitution.
So then is your position that it would be perfectly legal for say the State of Colorado to prohibit the NRA or the ACLU from either having a convention, sending out mailers promoting their beliefs, putting out newsletters promoting issues they believe in, putting out TV or radio ads, or organizing a march?
Is the NRA or ACLU somehow able to do those things without using humans?
Humans have a right to associate, and humans have free speech rights.
ETA: I prolly wasn’t very clear there, but I think people have a right to say what they want, and to band together, and to say things under that banner. The banner itself? Not so much.
I’m not grasping the fundamental difference between what you are advocating. It seems that you are saying that as a corporation, a fictional banner, Microsoft has no rights.
But if you look at it as a majority of the ownership of Microsoft, voting through it’s board of directors to issue a statement on behalf of the organization known as “Microsoft,” you seem to be saying that is okay. Is it just a matter of semantics?
It would be, except that legally the semantic difference has been erased. I think it should never have been erased.
Legally, organizations have all the rights of individuals with almost none of the accountability. I think that’s wrong.
If you want to go back to the way things used to be and be able to hold the individual shareholders/members of an organization responsible and accountable for the things the organization does, then I’d say we have a modicum of agreement and could begin to rationally discuss and propose the proper place in society for organizations.
If you think things are fine the way they are now, then I’d say we really don’t have much to talk about to each other, since we disagree on a fundamental level.
Countries are corporate people. When you say:
you’re right. That’s what the law does. We call a thing that can enter into a contract, a “person”. That’s the legal definition of a person in the law. You can enter into a contract. You’re a person. IBM can enter into a contract. It’s a person. The State of New Jersey can enter into a contract. It’s a person. Your dog can’t enter into a contract. It’s not a person.
No, it’s not remotely clear how that answers my question.
I’ll make them simple yes or no questions though you can obviously expand on the yes or no.
Yes or no, can the state of Colorado forbid Barnes and Noble from selling books it doesn’t like?
Yes or no, can the State of Colorado forbid the ACLU from putting out a newsletter it doesn’t like?
Yes or no, can the State of Colorado ban movie theatres from showing a documentary critical of a gubernatorial candidate?
Yes or no, can the State of Colorado forbid the NRA from airing radio and TV ads encouraging people to vote for or against certain ballot initiatives?
Thanks
So, you are against the idea of incorporation. Period. Full stop?
You aren’t just against the idea of corporation’s running ads in an election, you are against the basic purpose of a corporation?
If true, we do disagree on a fundamental level.
I’m against the idea of incorporation as we now know it. You are aware that corporations weren’t always like this, right?
Actually, I’m for a corporation just being for a basic purpose. Alas, they aren’t that way anymore.
It’s quite possible.
By this standard the ACLU are idiots.
Do you actually think that or would you rather retract and restate your point?
I’d be fine with a simple ruling that financial transactions are not equivalent to free speech and may be regulated. Although political speech has, and should have, the highest constitutional protection, it does not necessarily follow that the purchase of political speech should also have the highest constitutional protection.
In other words, produce all the political ads you want. But you may not be allowed to pay someone to run them.
So then since it costs money to print and publish books you’re fine with the banning the publication and distribution of books criticizing political candidates running for high office?
Similarly, since it costs money to print and distribute leaflets you think it was perfectly right for the FEC to fine the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets criticizing the environmental record of a Republican Senate candidate in Florida?
Books are normally published to make money. That’s commercial. But yeah, if people were paying a vanity publisher to get out their electoral screed in book form I would be OK with the government regulating that. That is, if there were evidence that such books can influence elections which I rather doubt.
Again I would give a qualified yes. Certainly this sort of behavior should be subject to regulation within the 60 day limit. If it’s a genuine outpouring of civic minded behavior then that’s one thing. Volunteers putting together relatively inexpensive campaign literature and taking time out of their lives to hand them out seems to me to be core political speech. But centrally published leaflets handed out by paid operatives? IMO that’s money not speech.
People who publish books have other objectives other than just making money and it makes little sense to say that something that is “commercial” should be subjected to different regulations.
Beyond that, it is certainly good to meet someone who’s upfront and proud about being a bookburner so congratulations.
And no, the term “bookburner” is not meant as an insult.
It’s simply that most people ignore the fact that the core issue of Citizens United was whether or not the US government could prohibit the airing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton and also that under McCain-Feingold it would have been perfectly permissible to ban the movie* Fahrenheit 911*.
I’m sorry but this makes little constitutional sense.
Either it’s constitutional for the government to punish people for trying to influence an election by agitating in favor or against a particular candidate or it’s not.
Moreover, lots of reprehensible behavior that has really dramatically bad societal effects is protected by the First Amendment.
For example, minorities are expected to put up with hate speech that can and often does inspire both discrimination against them and even violent assaults.
Whenever, I’ve pointed this out I’ve always been told “well that’s the price we pay for the First Amendment”.
I don’t see why the same isn’t true here.
Anyway, I have never once heard an explanation as to why people arguing that all niggers deserve to murdered should be protected by the First Amendment while people saying that Newt Gingrich sucks shouldn’t.
I’m sorry but this makes utterly no sense. For starters Obama didn’t spend anything close to 750 million dollars in 2008. In fact, I don’t think all political candidates running for President even when their totals were combined came even close to that total.
Moreover, your statement makes no sense because Citizens United does not grant Obama the ability to spend any extra money on political campaigns.
Finally, prior to Citizens United, Obama could already spend as much money on his presidential campaign as he wanted so long as he decline matching funds, which he did in 2008.
In fact, quite a few staunch advocates of campaign finance reform including both Obama and Howard Dean declined matching funds so they could spend unlimited amounts of money on the campaign.