# Does the first amendment really let corporations buy elections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690 "2009-08-25T20:39:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Brainiac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8797f3/32.png) [@Brainiac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/1 "2009-08-25T20:39:58Z")
In fact, do corporations have any constitutional rights? I don’t see it. Yet there they are, finding one method and then another, gaming the system to sway voters, and all done with other people’s money, the money of investors basically unaware of their agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/2 "2009-08-25T21:06:42Z")
Absolutely, corporations have constitutional rights. Indeed, they _must_ have such rights, for the current capitalism/democracy model to keep chugging along. Anyway, what you describe as being done by corporations has historically been done by _anyone_ who had the bucks. There’s nothing inherently corporation-ish about it. If you want to blame someone, blame your brain-dead fellow citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/3 "2009-08-25T21:10:48Z")
Firstly, corporations consist of and are run by real people. Secondly, one of the rights that has been held to be implicit in the First Amendment is freedom of association. One way for people to associate is by forming corporations. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/4 "2009-08-25T21:11:54Z")
It bears repeating that the biggest political donors are not corporations but [unions](http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A). And corporate contributions may be [overstated](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/correction_on_c.html): > [@](#): > > When I gave $1600 to Ron Paul’s campaign in the last election cycle, I identified myself, because I was required to do so by law, as an employee of the U.S. Navy. By the same methodology that attributes individual contributions to employers, that means that the U.S. Navy gave $1600 (plus, I would guess, hundreds of thousands of dollars contributed by other U.S. Navy employees) to Ron Paul. That’s absurd. > > It is true that corporations often have Political Action Committees that bundle individual employee contributions and send them to candidates and it’s probably true that many of these employees feel pressured to give. So it’s not as if the fingerprints of these corporations are not on some of the contributions. But I know a number of people who gave close to the maximum contribution ($2300) to individual candidates and who did it out of conviction rather than out of any perceived felt pressure. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/5 "2009-08-26T03:08:59Z")
> [@Brainiac](#): > > Yet there they are, finding one method and then another, gaming the system to sway voters, and all done with other people’s money, the money of investors basically unaware of their agenda. Is this thread sparked by the pharma companies buying advertising supporting the administration’s health-insurance reform plans? Is that what you’re objecting to? ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/6 "2009-08-26T03:19:23Z")
The right to free speech and all else was granted to them with the Fourteenth Amendment, which was worded to use the term “person” rather than “citizen.” Corporations, legally, are persons too. The matter became first apparent some years after the Fourth Amendment was passed. It was decided at trial. Testimony at the trial included that of a couple senators, who were brought in to argue that, “yup, that’s exactly what we meant when we wrote the amendment.” Rather logically, the political system was bought by corporations before it gave corporations the right to buy it. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/7 "2009-08-26T04:12:35Z")
> [@Brainiac](#): > > Does the first amendment really let corporations buy elections? Doesn’t this reasoning mean the rights used by corporations to “buy elections” also let _individuals_ buy elections? ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/8 "2009-08-26T04:30:15Z")
> [@Let's have a Dopey Constitutional Convention](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-have-a-dopey-constitutional-convention/506637/16): > > The 14th amendment has since [1886](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad) has been interpreted to the effect that corporations are “people” and enjoy the rights of individuals. To my mind, this is THE most egregious piece of judicial legislation EVER. A brief history of this nightmare can be found [here](http://www.prorev.com/corpsandus.htm). … ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/9 "2009-08-26T04:44:27Z")
I haven’t read your list, but I already dismiss it. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/10 "2009-08-26T11:17:11Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > It bears repeating that the biggest political donors are not corporations but [unions](http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A). And corporate contributions may be [overstated](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/correction_on_c.html): Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/11 "2009-08-26T13:50:44Z")
The founding fathers may have favored landed white men but they were quite aware of the [danger](http://www.theseminal.com/2009/03/03/the-founding-fathers-did-not-want-large-corporations/) to their new govt that large accumulations of capital could pose. > [@](#): > > The first corporations appeared in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries and were chartered by governments for specific public missions. The largest and most powerful of these early corporations was The East India Company, founded by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 to facilitate trade between England and her colonies. At the height of its power, The East India Compnay held economic control over 1/5 of world’s population and maintained a private army of over 250,000 soldiers. Unjust taxation policies favoring this company insured that the crown, and not the colonists themselves, reaped the benefits from the colonies’ natural wealth and industry. As our founders set things up, corporations were looked upon as potential felons and quite restricted in their legal “rights”. “Free speech” was not among them. > [@](#): > > 1. Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years. Today, corporations are assumed to be open-ended in their duration, only ceasing to exist if they can no longer afford to stay in business. (And sometimes being allowed to continue with government funds even when they can’t sustain themselves!) 2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm. Back then, there was corporate accountability. Break the law, and you’re out of business. Today, an offending individual or two might (and I say might) see jail time, but the corporate machine just keeps rolling along. And as for causing public harm… 3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose. Could you imagine a government official walking into a board meeting at Disney and telling them that they the only business they can be conducting in the whole company is producing cartoons? 4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose. Does that include luxury jets? How about condos in the Caribbean? 5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations. I’m beginning to see a trend here. Corporations were not allowed to do anything or own any assets that were not specifically related to the purpose for which they were founded. Period. 6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior. Oh snap! If still upheld today, this rule would have meant that anyone who owned stock in any of the companies that needed a bailout would have had to have paid for those bailouts out of their own pockets. Owning part of a corporation meant truly being responsible for that corporation. And from my previous post > [@](#): > > The 14th amendment has since [1886](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad) has been interpreted to the effect that corporations are “people” and enjoy the rights of individuals. To my mind, this is THE most egregious piece of judicial legislation EVER. A brief history of this nightmare can be found [here](http://www.prorev.com/corpsandus.htm). The bottom line is people die while corporations today are considered potentially eternal. People die and their fortunes and political influence are subject to dispersal whereas corporations and their revolving-door lobbyists live on and on and on … The result is that while the corporate “free market” is looked upon by the uniformed as economic Darwinism, it is quite [Lamarckian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/12 "2009-08-26T13:51:46Z")
The founding fathers may have favored landed white men but they were quite aware of the [danger](http://www.theseminal.com/2009/03/03/the-founding-fathers-did-not-want-large-corporations/) to their new govt that large accumulations of capital could pose. > [@](#): > > The first corporations appeared in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries and were chartered by governments for specific public missions. The largest and most powerful of these early corporations was The East India Company, founded by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 to facilitate trade between England and her colonies. At the height of its power, The East India Compnay held economic control over 1/5 of world’s population and maintained a private army of over 250,000 soldiers. Unjust taxation policies favoring this company insured that the crown, and not the colonists themselves, reaped the benefits from the colonies’ natural wealth and industry. As our founders set things up, corporations were looked upon as potential felons and quite restricted in their legal “rights”. “Free speech” was not among them. > [@](#): > > 1. Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years. Today, corporations are assumed to be open-ended in their duration, only ceasing to exist if they can no longer afford to stay in business. (And sometimes being allowed to continue with government funds even when they can’t sustain themselves!) 2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm. Back then, there was corporate accountability. Break the law, and you’re out of business. Today, an offending individual or two might (and I say might) see jail time, but the corporate machine just keeps rolling along. And as for causing public harm… 3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose. Could you imagine a government official walking into a board meeting at Disney and telling them that they the only business they can be conducting in the whole company is producing cartoons? 4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose. Does that include luxury jets? How about condos in the Caribbean? 5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations. I’m beginning to see a trend here. Corporations were not allowed to do anything or own any assets that were not specifically related to the purpose for which they were founded. Period. 6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior. Oh snap! If still upheld today, this rule would have meant that anyone who owned stock in any of the companies that needed a bailout would have had to have paid for those bailouts out of their own pockets. Owning part of a corporation meant truly being responsible for that corporation. And from my previous post > [@](#): > > The 14th amendment has since [1886](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad) has been interpreted to the effect that corporations are “people” and enjoy the rights of individuals. To my mind, this is THE most egregious piece of judicial legislation EVER. A brief history of this nightmare can be found [here](http://www.prorev.com/corpsandus.htm). The bottom line is people die while corporations today are considered potentially eternal. People die and their fortunes and political influence are subject to dispersal whereas corporations and their revolving-door lobbyists live on and on and on … The result is that while the corporate “free market” is looked upon by the uniformed as economic Darwinism, it is quite [Lamarckian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism). … ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/13 "2009-08-26T15:17:10Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > As our founders set things up, corporations were looked upon as potential felons and quite restricted in their legal “rights”. “Free speech” was not among them. Aside from the usual exaggerration of the court case in question, this doesn’t make any sense. What’s a “Potential” felon? Aren’t you a “potential felon?” Where in the Constitution is “potential felon” mentioned? Corporations are considered persons for some legal purposes and not for others, and if you can come up with a logical reason why it should not be so, by all means volunteer it. Corporations can’t vote, for instance. But should corporations not be protected from thieves? If I steal your hat, the law protects you, but if I steal merchandise from your incorporated hat store, are you saying the law should not regard that as a crime because the hats were stolen from a corporation? Similarly with freedom of speech. You can say you don’t want corporations to have that right (and in fact business speech IS much, much more restricted than personal speech) but how can you infringe upon that and not infringe upon free speech in general? If you don’t want ABC Corp. lobbying, ABC Corp will just pay more salary to its directors and have them lobby directly. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/14 "2009-08-26T15:41:12Z")
Nate Silver put together [an interesting table](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/real-problem-with-senates-small-state.html) earlier this month, showing corporate PAC contributions as a percentage of a Senator’s total contributions. Whether or not corporations can buy elections, their PACs can certainly buy Senators, especially those from small states (which was the point of Nate’s chart). The basis thesis can be broken down this way: 1. To a corporate PAC, any Senator’s vote is equally valuable. 2. Flesh-and-blood people, OTOH, are much more likely to contribute to the campaigns of Senatorial candidates in their states than to Senatorial candidates elsewhere. 3. While small-state voters are as likely to contribute to Senatorial campaigns as large-state voters are, there are a lot fewer of them, so they give a lot less money, total. 4. So in small states, it’s much easier than in large states for corporate PAC contributions to Senators and Senate candidates to swamp contributions from individuals. There were two interesting things about this chart, IMHO. One, the near-absence of Republicans from the lower reaches of the chart, isn’t of relevance to this discussion. The other, which definitely relates to this discussion, was the hard-to-overlook fact that almost all of the Senate Dems that give progressives like me fits with their efforts to avoid stepping on corporate toes are congregated near the top of the list - i.e. they have the highest percentages of corporate PAC contributions among Democrats. That’s where we see names like Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Byron Dorgan, Mark Pryor, and the like. Reminds me of this _Bloom County_ strip from 1981 (sorry, wasn’t able to Google a pic): > [@](#): > > Bedfellow: And as your Senator … I’m tickled to be here today, chatting with all of you … um … future voters … yessir … > > Bedfellow: Now … Can any of you little nits tell me which great principle our political system is based upon? > Milo: “Money talks”. > > Bedfellow: HMPH … Yes, well, the other great principle … > Milo: “MONEY TALKS”. > > Bedfellow: Watch your tongue, boy, or somebody might CUT IT OFF. > Milo: MONEY TALKS! Yes, indeedy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/15 "2009-08-26T15:47:12Z")
I don’t like it that money talks, but that doesn’t totally chap my hide. That it votes… that drives me nuts. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/16 "2009-08-26T15:48:17Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > .. > Corporations are considered persons for some legal purposes and not for others, and if you can come up with a logical reason why it should not be so, by all means volunteer it … I’m referring all requests of this nature to my post. I’m not here to debate. I merely offer an historical context for Corporate America, for better or worse. Let the reader decide. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/17 "2009-08-26T15:59:33Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Similarly with freedom of speech. You can say you don’t want corporations to have that right (and in fact business speech IS much, much more restricted than personal speech) but how can you infringe upon that and not infringe upon free speech in general? If you don’t want ABC Corp. lobbying, ABC Corp will just pay more salary to its directors and have them lobby directly. As I understand it, the legal distinctions between business speech and personal speech under American Constitutional law have been eroding for some time, and there’s not a whole lot of difference left. But IANAL; I have all this secondhand. Perhaps one of our legal eagles can weigh in. However, I think it’s both practically possible (as opposed to legally feasible) and necessary to restrict corporate speech without hampering speech by individuals. Why it’s necessary is that individual speech is, for most of us, time and money lost to other purposes. Since we human beings only have 24 hours in a day, and all but a relative handful of us have limited financial resources, that’s important. Corporate speech, OTOH, is without such bounds. There are no limits on time because they can keep buying more lobbyists. And the limits on money are so stratospheric that they’re pretty much irrelevant, because such expenditures are _investments_ which not only have an excellent track record of paying for themselves, but often have a pretty spectacular rate of return. So what we have is a structurally uneven battle between the time and money of flesh-and-blood people who want to affect the political process, and that of corporations that seek to do the same. If current interpretation of the Constitution so permitted, it would be possible to do so by passing laws banning lobbying and issue advertising by corporations. Sure, the stockholders, directors, officers, etc. could still lobby _as individuals_, and it would be impossible to take away that right. But _as individuals_, they have limited money and time (even if they have more money and free time than the average citizen), and competing demands for those resources. They must sleep; they cannot clone themselves. The playing field iwould still not be level, but it would be close enough, at least as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/18 "2009-08-26T16:02:21Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > … 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/19 "2009-08-26T16:05:31Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I’m not here to debate. Dude, this forum is called “Great Debates,” not “Great Statements of Fact or Opinion.” There’s nothing wrong with stopping into a debate thread to add some relevant facts, then leaving - if nobody’s going to argue about whether they’re facts. But if their status as facts isn’t clear, or if you’re expressing opinions under the guise of historical context, then they’re only as good as your ability to defend them in debate. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/20 "2009-08-26T16:07:08Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > …They must sleep; they cannot clone themselves.. Send in…the clones. There must be…clones. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690.md?page=2)