# 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:** 4
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/61 "2009-08-27T21:06:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders, executives, employees, etc. I thought we’d pretty well gone over this. I don’t care about the law, what it says, or its meaning. I wrote an entire thread one time about how I don’t care about the law, and lots of people agreed with me. Laws influence my actions and beliefs to a negligible degree. All I’m saying is that whatever else it is, a corporation is a group of people. A “legal entity” doesn’t have a mouth, people do. “Legal entities” don’t write; that’s people too. Any laws you may write governing corporations and their ‘speech’ is going to restrict people and their actions. People are the only entities that can read and write; laws are written by people and for people, and any action that is prohibited is a human action. > [@](#): > > 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. If every last person involved with the company has the freedom of speech, who exactly are you trying to silence? The walls and the factory robots? ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/62 "2009-08-27T21:22:42Z")
Here’s a poor, made-up-on-the-spot analogy: A marriage is another “legal entity”. Married couples can buy houses, open bank accounts and do all sorts of other things jointly as if the couple itself was a single quasi-person. Do married couples have rights? Do they have the freedom of speech? You may or may not agree whether technically the “couple”, or “partnership” has any rights; but when someone starts demanding that free speech be denied to marriage partnerships, who else are they targeting except for you and your wife? The wedding ring? The marriage license? Of course not, they want to shut **you** up. ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/63 "2009-08-27T21:52:23Z")
For anyone actually interested, here is the [timeline](http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html) of the Supremes’ rulings on corporate personhood. ---
**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 27, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/64 "2009-08-27T23:37:50Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Here’s a poor, made-up-on-the-spot analogy: > > A marriage is another “legal entity”. Married couples can buy houses, open bank accounts and do all sorts of other things jointly as if the couple itself was a single quasi-person. > > Do married couples have rights? Do they have the freedom of speech? > > You may or may not agree whether technically the “couple”, or “partnership” has any rights; but when someone starts demanding that free speech be denied to marriage partnerships, who else are they targeting except for you and your wife? The wedding ring? The marriage license? Of course not, they want to shut **you** up. Of course, the marriage unit does not open a bank account - the constituent parties of the marriage are free to both take up ownership of property as they see fit - but don’t let reality get in the way of a craptastic analogy. Marriage is not a “legal entity” in this way - “The Marriage of Dick and Jane” does not buy a house. Dick and Jane, who happen to be married, buy the house. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/65 "2009-08-28T01:50:24Z")
The question remains: Whose freedom of speech are we talking about curtailing, if not a person’s? Who else speaks but people? Don’t tell me corporations speak. The words are coming out of some person’s mouth. Even if we are talking about other forms of speech and not just vocal, the original source was a person, and the original motivation was a person’s. You are talking about silencing people. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/66 "2009-08-28T12:54:11Z")
Anyone who thinks that corporations are just big people is in the same camp with joe6pack in thinking that he benefits from tax cuts for the rich. How corporations are different from people. 1)They are eternal and they never sleep. They don’t have take a crap or pick up the kids. 2)They have deep pockets and a hand in the bailout bucket. 3)People do not have ex-legislators sitting on their boards of directors. 4)People do not benefit from our being at war. Corporations do. 5)People are responsible for picking up after themselves. Corporations, like mountain topping coal extractors, get a pass. The fact that corporations are eternal is not trivial. > [@](#): > > 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 … These entities are not people, people. I encourage all to add to the above list. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/67 "2009-08-28T13:11:00Z")
For example 1. People are expected to pay taxes. [Many corporations are not.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-devin/many-us-corporations-not_b_135104.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-devin/many-us-corporations-not_b_135104.html) ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/68 "2009-08-28T13:24:06Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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 think this issue could easily be addressed by making any restriction not apply to corporations that have non-profit status. I don’t think the concern is that the United Way, for example, is corrupting our political process. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/69 "2009-08-28T14:08:15Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I don’t care about the law, what it says, or its meaning. I guess I can ignore anything else you have to say about this. Because while we human beings exist independently of the law, corporations are entirely creatures of the law; without the law, they would not exist. At most, we would have informal partnerships, which have vastly different properties. > [@](#): > > I wrote an entire thread one time about how I don’t care about the law, and lots of people agreed with me. Laws influence my actions and beliefs to a negligible degree. That’s because you’re a flesh-and-blood human being, whose existence isn’t dependent on enabling legislation. > [@](#): > > All I’m saying is that whatever else it is, a corporation is a group of people. No, it’s not. I’ve gone into detail about that. > [@](#): > > A “legal entity” doesn’t have a mouth, people do. “Legal entities” don’t write; that’s people too. And they’re doing so as employees and paid agents _of the corporation_. So who is really speaking through these people’s words and writings: the people themselves, or the corporation? > [@](#): > > Any laws you may write governing corporations and their ‘speech’ is going to restrict people and their actions. It would restrict _what they could say and write as paid agents of the corporation_, not what they could say and do as independent individuals. > [@](#): > > If every last person involved with the company has the freedom of speech, who exactly are you trying to silence? The walls and the factory robots? I’m trying to silence _what they could say and write as paid agents of the corporation_, not what they could say and do as independent individuals. You really haven’t been reading my posts, have you? If the things they’re saying for the corporation are things they want to say anyway, then they’d be free to say them on their own time and dime. If you believe that corporations are really groups of individuals, they would do so, and such a change wouldn’t impact their behavior in the least, right? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/70 "2009-08-28T16:08:37Z")
So if I put my corporate hat on, I won’t be able to say what I want, but if I take it off, I can say whatever I please? So you admit you want to take the freedom of speech away from people in certain situations, specifically, the situation in which they are wearing the corporate hat? This ties in directly with what I said above: > [@](#): > > 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:** ![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 28, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/71 "2009-08-28T16:32:55Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So if I put my corporate hat on, I won’t be able to say what I want, but if I take it off, I can say whatever I please? > > So you admit you want to take the freedom of speech away from people in certain situations, specifically, the situation in which they are wearing the corporate hat? This ties in directly with what I said above: No, because if you’re doing anything to the actual person, you’re taking away someone’s right to be someone else’s agent. That isn’t a constitutionally-protected right, last time I checked. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/72 "2009-08-28T17:20:58Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So if I put my corporate hat on, I won’t be able to say what I want, but if I take it off, I can say whatever I please? You can say what you please - but they can’t **pay** you to do so. It has nothing to do with hats. It has to do with _remuneration_. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/73 "2009-08-28T17:21:31Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > No, because if you’re doing anything to the actual person, you’re taking away someone’s right to be someone else’s agent. That isn’t a constitutionally-protected right, last time I checked. So, I have no right to consentually speak on behalf of someone else? Or are you arguing that I shouldn’t have that right? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/74 "2009-08-28T17:24:23Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So, I have no right to consentually speak on behalf of someone else? Or are you arguing that I shouldn’t have that right? I’m saying that you definitely should have that right. And that a private individual should be able to pay you for speaking on their behalf. But a for-profit corporation shouldn’t be able to do so. ---
**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 29, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/75 "2009-08-29T01:13:31Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > The question remains: Whose freedom of speech are we talking about curtailing, if not a person’s? Yes, we’re talking about curtailing people’s freedom of speech. People who would use the corporate coffers to speak louder than others. People whose speech is meant to corrupt the political process, to make it shallow and divert it from caring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. What’s wrong with curtailing people’s freedom of speech? ---
**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 29, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/76 "2009-08-29T01:35:04Z")
But of course, better than trying to shut people up is to make their words irrelevant, which is what I was arguing must be done. I guess I can see how putting anti-lobying laws into place could significantly curtail corporate influence. Yet, the political process will remain shallow, based on tv ads, based on groups of people aggregating power and competiting with it. And the rich will still have disproportionate influence. In _total_, you won’t see dramatic change. Btw, probably the worst way that corporations influenced America in recent memory: the war that they started in order to raise the price of oil and increase demand for the products of the military-industrial complex did not hinge on the influence of lobyists or the power of corporate funds. It hinged on powerful, rich people electing _themselves_ into office. The media supported them not because it is owned by corporations (which are typically unrelated to the oil/war ones), but through careful manipulation of the concept of political correctness, controlled access to press conferences, and the general tradition of ass-wipe pussy journalism that is mainstream. This dark chapter in our history won’t be reexamined or revised by Obama not because he’s been bought out, but because he’s a bastard concerned about maintaining faith and confidence in our crooked government. I think a lot of smaller things are directly decided by corporate lobying and corporate money. But not the biggest ones. Those are a lot more complex, even if they involve corporations and people made rich by corporations. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/77 "2009-08-29T01:57:10Z")
The health care corporations have 5000 lobbyists threatening ,cajoling and bribing our politicians at this time.They are apparently very successful at getting their way on legislation. They wrote legislation during Bush’s term like the Bankruptcy Bill. They are insidious and should be cleaned up. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/78 "2009-08-29T02:19:34Z")
Tell you what: If you want to clean up influence in government, how about we start with the massive influence unions have? Start by making it illegal to use union dues for any sort of partisan activity, since union employees have no choice but to pay dues. The floor of the Republican convention wasn’t filled with representatives of Pfizer and Halliburton, but the floor of the Democratic convention was filled with people from the teacher’s unions, the service employee’s unions, the teamsters, and other big union officials. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/79 "2009-08-29T02:31:29Z")
[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm) Here is a nice history of how corporations and the powerful have slowly changed the entire system to their benefit. The original framers had no trust of corporations and wanted to limit their influence. They have won and they are above the law. When they are not they just change it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/80 "2009-08-31T16:34:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Tell you what: If you want to clean up influence in government, how about we start with the massive influence unions have? Two questions: 1. What evidence do you have that unions have ‘massive’ influence - compared to that of corporations, since that’s the present topic of discussion? 2. What evidence can you give that union influence is **a problem**? Don’t unions basically represent their members - flesh-and-blood people - just like other nonprofit activist groups from the NRA to the AARP do? As a small-d democrat, I start with the assumption that the involvement of actual human beings in the political process is a positive good. Even when they heatedly disagree with me, I believe their participation in the game is important. I may ridicule the wingnuts who are screaming about death panels and Obama’s birth certificate, but they’re people; they have the right to make their voices heard, and I will always defend that right. So I find nothing inherently troublesome about unions making their political presence felt. YMMV, of course, but I’d like to understand **why** , other than that you object to the things they favor, or that they have support that’s somewhat disproportionate to their membership - because someone’s always going to swing more weight than appropriate for their numbers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690.md?page=5)