# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/41 "2009-08-26T20:08:28Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > If you’re going to get snarky, it may actually help to know something about corporate law first. > > A shareholder cannot get sued for the acts of a corporation (certain exceptions). Unless the shareholder in question was responsible, why shouldn’t they be exempt from lawsuits? I think this undercuts your own argument. Corporations are made up of people, therefore the people who are responsible are those that are punished. It makes no sense to punish people who had nothing to do with the alleged transgression. > [@](#): > > This is not a natural consequence of “people pooling their resources”. It’s a consequence of the corporation being considered separate from the people that formed it. I see it as the exact opposite. It is a consequence of the corporation being recognized as simply a collection of people. Hence an analogous argument could be made that a corporation per se has no right to freedom of speech, but all the individual people that make up that corporation do. The net effect is the same. Corporations should be able to ‘say’ whatever they want within the bounds of legality, because otherwise, you are silencing innocent individuals. ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/42 "2009-08-26T20:13:38Z")
The individual persons who form a corporate entity already have their human rights, each and every, and equal under the law. Well, that’s the plan, at least, and its taking a lot longer than we thought… But if a collection of individual persons forms a conglomerate that itself has an individual share of rights, then those persons have a fraction more than their unincorporated fellow citizens. Not quite kosher, IMHO. OK, maybe “humble” is a bit of a stretch… ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/43 "2009-08-26T20:14:16Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Unless the shareholder in question was responsible, why shouldn’t they be exempt from lawsuits? I think this undercuts your own argument. Corporations are made up of people, therefore the people who are responsible are those that are punished. It makes no sense to punish people who had nothing to do with the alleged transgression. Read up on “general partnerships” and then get back to me. > [@](#): > > I see it as the exact opposite. It is a consequence of the corporation being recognized as simply a collection of people. Except it is not recognized as such. > [@](#): > > Hence an analogous argument could be made that a corporation per se has no right to freedom of speech, but all the individual people that make up that corporation do. The net effect is the same. Corporations should be able to ‘say’ whatever they want within the bounds of legality, because otherwise, you are silencing innocent individuals. That’s cute jurisprudence. Unfortunately it’s not the way it works. Corporations are able to “say whatever they want” because corporations are seen in the eyes of a law as an entity which has been granted certain constitutional rights. I would like to see you apply this logic to voting and then justify why corporations are currently given no right to vote. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/44 "2009-08-26T20:19:44Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t see what would stop a director of Archer Daniels Midland from simply hiring people with his “own money.” Banning a specific legal entity from lobbying will simply invite people to change the legal entity doing the lobbying, but the money can still come from a big business. Tru dat, but that’s true for rich people generally. If I were a billionaire, I could hire a batch of lobbyists to advocate the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax. And I think that supports my point: sure, a director of ADM could personally hire lobbyists to lobby for changes in laws that would benefit ADM. And that director is probably on a number of other corporate boards (it’s light work unless you choose it to be otherwise), and he could do the same for them. And he probably has issues that would benefit him personally, and issues that don’t benefit him personally but are just his personal axes to grind. But just as it’s illegal at present in the U.S. for your employer to give you a $2000 raise with the understanding that you’ll give it to someone’s campaign, such a law banning corporate lobbying would presumably make illegal similar transparent backdoor attempts to pay for someone else to pay for lobbying. > [@](#): > > The problem with the complaints about “Corporations” is, of course, that most corporations are not big businesses at all, but very small ones (or aren’t even businesses; the old timers softball league I play in is a corporation) and not all businesses or large, influential organizations are corporations. Is the AARP a corporation? (They may be, but if so it’s probably a not-for-profit.) How about the NAACP? MADD? MADD is a corporation; should it be prohibited from lobbying politicians, while, say, a nonincorporated business or a trade union is? I’d personally draw the line between for-profits and nonprofits. The logic of speech as investment with monetary return clearly applies to for-profit corporations, but not to nonprofits. > [@](#): > > If there’s a problem with businesses buying votes - and I do not doubt for a minute that it is a problem - I don’t think laws such as you’re proposing will accomplish anything, to be honest. You can’t stop people from talking to other people. I’d be very much against “stop[ping] people from talking to other people.” People - even rich and well-connected people - should be able to do what they damned well please with their own time and money to influence the political process. But in the U.S., changing _anything_ in a way that might gore some business’ ox is inevitably a major uphill battle. Part of that’s undoubtedly our cockeyed legislative system with far too many choke points (it’s impressive how few countries other than the U.S. have gone with a bicameral legislature, just to pick one for-instance), but a lot of it is the fundamentally uneven competition between people and corporations in terms of getting their concerns heard by legislators. > [@](#): > > You COULD restrict business advertising on political issues, I suppose, but that speaks to the real problem; you need people to wake up and smell the coffee. What does this mean? There have been cases where corporate interests have dumped millions of dollars into a state legislative race, because the legislator in question wanted to regulate factory farming. Made the guy look only a bit worse than Satan by the time they were done. Not sure who was supposed to wake up and smell the coffee. > [@](#): > > Other countries managed to get things like single payer health insurance without banning lobbyists. Can you be specific? Seriously, if the nations of western Europe, Canada, etc. allow the same sort of corporate influence that is allowed in the U.S., but you guys have all managed to get stuff like UHC and mandatory paid vacations and stuff despite it, there may be some lessons to be learned here. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/45 "2009-08-26T20:24:34Z")
I see a lot of assertions without facts in here. It’s like Doctors Without Borders, only with more sneering. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/46 "2009-08-26T20:52:21Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > I would like to see you apply this logic to voting and then justify why corporations are currently given no right to vote. Corporations do vote. They get one vote for every employee and shareholder. If they were recognized as a legally separate quasi-person, then we would expect to see them granted a legally separate quasi-vote. Alas, they are not. That’s my logic at least. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/47 "2009-08-26T21:11:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > What election did they buy? I don’t have any elections to cite, but who’s been funding the tea-baggers? It seems to me it’s corporate lobbyists. Are the tea-baggers having honest debate or spreading the lies of their handlers (such as “Steven Hawking would be dead if he was British”)? Are all these lies good for discourse into what is the best healthcare system or destructive to the democratic process? Seem like it’s destructive to both sides. I am strongly pro-healthcare reform and public option, but even I can see how frustrating it must be for the anti-public option side to be associated with a bunch of mindless dittoheads who think the UK is a third world country. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/48 "2009-08-26T21:15:51Z")
> [@Brainiac](#): > > In fact, do corporations have any constitutional rights? A corporation is legally a person for some purposes but not for others. E.g., a corporation has no vote in general elections. OTOH, it can own property and – more to the point WRT the OP – exercise freedom of speech/press. The question is whether **money** is a form of speech, in the sense that giving money to election campaigns is constitutionally protected activity. The Supreme Court, last time it ruled on the question, [said yes,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._valleo) but maybe it will rule differently in the future; there are persuasive contrary arguments (see [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11092253&highlight=lind+campaign#post11092253)). ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/49 "2009-08-26T22:13:19Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Corporations do vote. They get one vote for every employee and shareholder. If they were recognized as a legally separate quasi-person, then we would expect to see them granted a legally separate quasi-vote. Alas, they are not. > > That’s my logic at least. Your logic is flawed. My employment with a corporation does not mean my vote has to reflect the interests of my employer. > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no, it’s not. it’s a completely separate legal entity. if everyone on this planet died tomorrow, Wal-Mart would still exist from a legal standpoint. True. It can be simply an entity that exists just on paper. However, they often do have natural persons as employees, owners and managers. And those people are subject to the law, part of a corporation or not. It’s simplistic to say “Corporations are treated like people! That’s evil!” It’s also simplistic to criticize lobiests on principle. People have a right to assemble, to pool their resources and petition the government. ---
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/50 "2009-08-26T23:49:18Z")
Any time people come together and organize, they gain power greater than the sum of their parts. Whether they’re corporations, unions, etc. And like everything else, that is ok only in a certain dosage. The constitution way have been wrong with the blanket “people may assemble and petition the Government,” at least under some circumstances. It’s turned out that government’s dissolved into special interests haggling it, and it’s not effective. But rather than trying to ban lobbying, etc. (although some good may come of it), the problem must be attacked from the other end. Our elections and issues are decided by tv ads. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT. When you have a retarded system like that (based on money and based on ignorant decision making), you’re bound to have everything else go wrong too. No shit, sherlock. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/51 "2009-08-27T00:29:26Z")
I don’t think they “buy elections” instead they fund both candidates campaigns, not all of it in reportable financial terms. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/52 "2009-08-27T01:10:38Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Your logic is flawed. My employment with a corporation does not mean my vote has to reflect the interests of my employer. Does everything you say reflect the interests of your employer? Of course not. You have the freedom of speech. Your company has the freedom of speech only to the extent that people employed by the company agree with it. Similar with the vote. If your company had an “official” voting policy, you would be free to disagree and vote for someone else and those who agreed with the policy would be free to vote the company line. So you see, your company has a vote to the exact same extent as they have free speech. The only difference is that they can’t put their name on a vote and make it look more official and weighty than everyone else’s vote. ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/53 "2009-08-27T01:27:09Z")
I’m not passing judgement on how you guys do things, just passing on some information you might find interesting. Our [laws](http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=ec90557&dir=bkg&lang=e) take the opposite view from you guys about corporate donations. If you want my opinion, I think our way is better, but then again I am Canadian! 😃 PS Oops, I guess that means I did pass judgement. Oh well. Chacun à son goût ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/54 "2009-08-27T02:27:08Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Does everything you say reflect the interests of your employer? Of course not. You have the freedom of speech. Your company has the freedom of speech only to the extent that people employed by the company agree with it. Similar with the vote. If your company had an “official” voting policy, you would be free to disagree and vote for someone else and those who agreed with the policy would be free to vote the company line. > > So you see, your company has a vote to the exact same extent as they have free speech. The only difference is that they can’t put their name on a vote and make it look more official and weighty than everyone else’s vote. Then I don’t understand your point then that “Corporations do vote”. I thought we were talking about corporate influence. Actually, if you want to know how corporations wield influence, the management consulting firm I used to work for had a “strategic communications” division that essentially was a kind of lobby / PR firm. What they will typically do is figure out what “levers” they can pull to apply public opinion pressure to candidates. I never actually worked with that group, but they way they described it, it’s a bit more nuanced than simply sending some guy with a trenchcoat to deliver a suitcase full of cash. ---
**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 27, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/55 "2009-08-27T04:08:03Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I don’t have any elections to cite, but who’s been funding the tea-baggers? > > It seems to me it’s corporate lobbyists. As noted upthread, the corporate lobbyists (at least from the Pharma industry) are funding the pro-reform ads. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/56 "2009-08-27T04:31:39Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Then I don’t understand your point then that “Corporations do vote”. I thought we were talking about corporate influence. You may be talking about corporate influence, but I’m trying to make the point that restricting corporations is the same as restricting people, and corporate action is simply human action. Taking away a corporation’s rights is taking away a person’s rights. You may argue that it is a good thing to take away people’s rights in certain situations, but let’s call a spade a spade. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/57 "2009-08-27T14:19:48Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > You may be talking about corporate influence, but I’m trying to make the point that restricting corporations is the same as restricting people, and corporate action is simply human action. A corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders, executives, employees, etc. I thought we’d pretty well gone over this. A corporation’s motives are not simply some weighted average of the motives of the above-mentioned people. The corporation is in business to maximize its profits more or less within the confines of the law. The motivations of just about any person you meet are much more complex than that. > [@](#): > > Taking away a corporation’s rights is taking away a person’s rights. How so? The fact that a corporation doesn’t have a vote of its own doesn’t deprive the stockholders, employees, etc. of the corporation of their votes - and many of them will be voting in ways that are at cross purposes to the interests of the corporation. Similarly, depriving the corporation itself of the right to free speech would not prevent those associated with the corporation in various capacities from exercising their free speech rights on behalf of the corporation. > [@](#): > > You may argue that it is a good thing to take away people’s rights in certain situations, but let’s call a spade a spade. Or an apple an orange, or whatever: > [@Animal House](#): > > But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/58 "2009-08-27T14:38:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders … Whacking-dem-moles. ---
**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 27, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/59 "2009-08-27T16:49:19Z")
I think what people are saying is that if you simply took away corporation-as-separate-entity’s rights, you won’t get far. Its interests may be distinct from that of most of its employees, but they’re pretty much the same as that of its CEO or other top officers. If these people can’t use corporate money, they’ll just write themselves bigger checks and use personal funds. Again, maybe there’ll still be some net benefit. But nothing huge. In the end, the fucking problem is that our elections are decided by TV ads. The electorate is ignorant, and swayed by rumors/emotion. (Like how msmith pointed out: you don’t need to pay politicians, you can pay people to attack politicians.) Even when everyone gets all “serious” and starts examining the “issues” on TV or in print, it’s all completely shallow, retarded discourse. That’s your problem. Everything else are symptoms. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/60 "2009-08-27T19:42:06Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > I think what people are saying is that if you simply took away corporation-as-separate-entity’s rights, you won’t get far. Its interests may be distinct from that of most of its employees, but they’re pretty much the same as that of its CEO or other top officers. That’s where we disagree. Even most corporate CEOs have other things in their lives besides the state of being a CEO. > [@](#): > > If these people can’t use corporate money, they’ll just write themselves bigger checks and use personal funds. Again, maybe there’ll still be some net benefit. But nothing huge. And again, if it’s apparent that this is happening, it would be illegal. And unlike with most bad things a corporation does, the CEO would be personally liable here. A corporation and its execs would have to do this in a way that there was no clear pattern between raises/bonuses and what the execs spent on lobbying. It’s doable, but the corporation would have to accept a high level of inefficiency in the use of its money. Hence there would be a huge net benefit. > [@](#): > > In the end, the fucking problem is that our elections are decided by TV ads. The electorate is ignorant, and swayed by rumors/emotion. (Like how msmith pointed out: you don’t need to pay politicians, you can pay people to attack politicians.) Hell, I’ve noticed this myself. It’s the other side of the same coin - the money in the coffers is the carrot; the ads trashing the politician’s character are the stick. > [@](#): > > Even when everyone gets all “serious” and starts examining the “issues” on TV or in print, it’s all completely shallow, retarded discourse. That’s your problem. Everything else are symptoms. And who owns the TV networks and most of the newspapers? Oh, yeah. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690.md?page=4)