# Corporations declared to be people? Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 18, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517 "2012-06-18T14:27:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/121 "2012-07-06T18:26:27Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I think this exchange illustrates the kind of game that is being played in this thread. > > **gamerunknown** was actually trying to make sense of your position, and said _if_. > > You then respond as though that he is asserting something, and in any case twist what the assertion would be. > If anything the assertion would be “People are too stupid to be influenced by ads” not “People are not too stupid to handle ads”; the former implying the smart are duped, the latter implying the dense. I want to hear you and/or him say out loud “the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message.” If you can say that, then tell me why you would possibly need to ban or limit ads, or why you think you have a right to. That will clear all this up. > [@](#): > > Why not? The fact that you even ask that question makes you unqualified for this discussion. The government must abide by the Constitution. You didn’t hear? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/122 "2012-07-07T01:01:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I want to hear you and/or him say out loud “the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message.” Well, as a generalization, I simply disagree with that statement. Not all people will critically appraise political ads, like not all people will critically appraise ads in general. Note that this is not the same as saying “all the people are teh dumb and are swayed by political ads” – you can’t generalize in either direction. Anyway, there is not a simple dividing line between swayed by ads and not. Everyone that sees them is influenced to one degree or another. > [@](#): > > The fact that you even ask that question makes you unqualified for this discussion. > The government must abide by the Constitution. You didn’t hear? Countries can and do change parts of their constitution if there is huge consensus. It is ridiculous to imagine otherwise. In any case, I should be clear that I do not believe that this is unconstitutional. The first amendment requires interpretation and I disagree with your interpretation. That’s not the same thing as wanting to overturn it. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2012, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/123 "2012-07-07T10:18:59Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > “the people are smart enough to handle political ads. They can think critically about them, consider other information from other sources, and accept or reject their message.” This isn’t the premise advertisers are operating on, otherwise they’d simply attempt to get advertisements seen by the majority of people, rather than relying on [effective frequency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_frequency) in order to create artificial demand, in direct opposition to rational choice theory. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The government may not violate the Constitution even when a majority of the people want it to. Call it what you will, it’s not democracy. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/124 "2012-07-09T13:48:27Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well, as a generalization, I simply disagree with that statement. Not all people will critically appraise political ads, like not all people will critically appraise ads in general. Note that this is not the same as saying “all the people are teh dumb and are swayed by political ads” – you can’t generalize in either direction. Yes, it is. You just use gentler language. But let’s meet minds here. Can you agree with this statement? “There is no justification for limiting speech based on the view that the people cannot think about the message in a way the government thinks is proper.” > [@](#): > > Anyway, there is not a simple dividing line between swayed by ads and not. Everyone that sees them is influenced to one degree or another. Of course. They’re supposed to be influential. > [@](#): > > Countries can and do change parts of their constitution if there is huge consensus. It is ridiculous to imagine otherwise. But the voters may not simply vote to violate the Constitution - only to change it. So if you have an amendment to offer, fine. If a constitutional amendment is seriously considered, you’ll work to build a consensus, and I’ll work to build a different one. The supreme irony, though, is that your side will be using the very rights it is proposing to get rid of to do it! There are groups today, including some that are incorporated just like the Citizens United group, that are accepting donations and using them to run ads calling for the repeal of Citizens United. And I just laugh when I see that. What hypocritical fools. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/125 "2012-07-09T13:49:38Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > This isn’t the premise advertisers are operating on, otherwise they’d simply attempt to get advertisements seen by the majority of people, rather than relying on [effective frequency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_frequency) in order to create artificial demand, in direct opposition to rational choice theory. So what? > [@](#): > > Call it what you will, it’s not democracy. Your doing that Orwell thing again. Free speech, followed by free elections, isn’t democracy? Okay. Following the Constitution isn’t democracy? Yeah. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/126 "2012-07-10T12:01:43Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > What hypocritical fools. They may think that advertising has an inimical effect when used to influence elections and not when used to influence public opinion on supreme court opinions. That said. Cite? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Free speech, followed by free elections, isn’t democracy? Okay. Overturning a law with popular support is not democracy. You’re doing professional goalpost shifting again. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > So what? So your characterisations are disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/127 "2012-07-10T13:08:02Z")
The underlying presumption of this debate seems to be that since corporations are rich, and unfettered they would use their wealth to dominate the political process, then the only workable solution is to limit freedom of speech, since the little people have no chance anyway. I think I’m going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc’s _ **The Servile State** _ to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/128 "2012-07-10T13:15:11Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > They may think that advertising has an inimical effect when used to influence elections and not when used to influence public opinion on supreme court opinions. Seriously? What a load of bullshit. Don’t even try that. > [@](#): > > That said. Cite? For groups I’m talking about? If that’s what you want I can provide it. > [@](#): > > Overturning a law with popular support is not democracy. You’re doing professional goalpost shifting again. Fine. We live in a constitutional republic in which the government follows the will of the people, subject to the limits of the Constitution. Overturning a law with popular support is perfectly consistent with living in a constitutional republic in which the government follows the will of the people, subject to the limits of the Constitution. Better? Stop playing games. The government may not violate the Bill of Rights. Vague notions of democracy is irrelevant to that fact. If you want to say it’s not democracy, fine, whatever. What you are advocating is just what de Toqueville warned of: “Tyranny of the Majority.” Even popular laws that violate the Constitution must be struck down. > [@](#): > > So your characterisations are disingenuous. Nope, your complaints are irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/129 "2012-07-10T13:16:13Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The underlying presumption of this debate seems to be that since corporations are rich, and unfettered they would use their wealth to dominate the political process, then the only workable solution is to limit freedom of speech, since the little people have no chance anyway. > > I think I’m going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc’s _ **The Servile State** _ to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom. Let us know if you start that thread, I’d like to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/130 "2012-07-10T18:17:48Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Let us know if you start that thread, I’d like to see it. Done! [Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=658091) ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/131 "2012-07-13T11:25:54Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Even popular laws that violate the Constitution must be struck down. What was that about Orwell again? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > For groups I’m talking about? If that’s what you want I can provide it. Go for it. > [@Lumpy](#): > > I think I’m going to have to start a thread devoted to Hilaire Belloc’s The Servile State to discuss this more thoroughly, but in short he anticipated that the response to the power of Capitalism would be increasing limitations on freedom. I said it before, democracy may be the antagonist of liberty. Socialism and syndicalism pose sharp threats to the freedom of property. Prisons are a fundamental intrusion on liberty. Campaign finance laws limit a person’s freedom to have as much speech as money allows. To an extent, so do publicly owned channels. I think switching to strictly public funding for electioneering communications would be an appropriate limitation on freedom in service of democracy. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/132 "2012-07-13T18:44:03Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > What was that about Orwell again? Seriously? That’s a bedrock function of our system. Certain laws may not be passed because the Constitution forbids them. Even if they are popular. Do you not get this basic principle? > [@](#): > > I said it before, democracy may be the antagonist of liberty. Sure. > [@](#): > > Campaign finance laws limit a person’s freedom to have as much speech as money allows. No they don’t. Donations aren’t speech. Money isn’t speech. > [@](#): > > To an extent, so do publicly owned channels. I think switching to strictly public funding for electioneering communications would be an appropriate limitation on freedom in service of democracy. Amend the Constitution then. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/133 "2012-07-14T11:45:18Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Do you not get this basic principle? It’s crystal clear. It’s also not democracy. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Donations aren’t speech. Money isn’t speech. But limiting the expenditure of money intended to be used on speech (in this case, the electioneering communications campaign finance pays for) limits speech. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517/134 "2012-07-16T13:44:03Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > It’s crystal clear. It’s also not democracy. Fine. We don’t have a pure democracy. If you want one, feel free to propose any necessary changes to the Constitution. We have a constitutional republic in which the government’s power, and therefore the people’s power, is limited. > [@](#): > > But limiting the expenditure of money intended to be used on speech (in this case, the electioneering communications campaign finance pays for) limits speech. Buckley addressed this. You should read it again, or for the first time. If you want me to choose between limiting donations to Super PACs and repealing all donation limits to candidates, I’ll choose dumping the limits to candidates. And the courts might do that soon too. Be careful what you wish for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-declared-to-be-people-huh/625517.md?page=6)