Corporations are People?

[Lumpenproletariat]

the slogan "Corporations are not people" ----
​

If you want to explain your slogan "corporations are not people" you at least must give us some facts about corporations and be able to state these facts without requiring falsehoods as part of your explanation. So far no one is giving any facts to explain what this slogan means.

. . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state, with privileges . . .

No, the state did not create the corporation, but only added some change to an already-existing entity or group which then gained limited liability, which any group can gain by just incorporating.

To say the state "created" the corporation is false just as it's false to say the state "created" a labor union. Just because the unions are put under gov't power, through the labor laws, does not mean that the state created the union. No, that entity already existed, even before applying for recognition under the labor laws. And the earlier unions (100 or so years ago) existed even before there were labor laws. These laws haven't CREATED unions, but only had gov't step in and make changes to the unions (which were already there as a problem to fix), to impose some new rules upon them. And it's the same when a business chooses to incorporate. . . .

So such groups existed first, already, . . . and only then, AFTERWARDS, did the government step in and impose some new rules. So it did not create those groups. They were already there, created earlier, spontaneously by the members or in some way independently of the government.

Corporations did not exist until gov’t created that legal form of entity. So your analysis is based on a false premise.

No, corporations did exist before gov't created that legal form of entity.

Google search question: When did gov't first create the corporate legal entity?

Google answer:

The modern concept of the corporate legal entity began to develop in the 17th century with chartered companies like the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, which were granted monopolies by governments. However, the establishment of the first modern general incorporation statutes, which allowed for easier formation of corporations and limited liability, primarily occurred in the early to mid-19th century in the United States and Britain.

So the 17th century is when the legal form of the corporation entity first developed. But when did the first corporations develop?

HISTORY of early corporations

What do the facts of history say about the earliest corporations centuries ago? whether they existed first and then became incorporated officially by the state, or whether they did not exist until state law first created the corporation "form of entity"?

Google search question: What is the earliest corporation in history?

Google search answer:

While the term "corporation" often evokes modern-day companies, the earliest known corporate entity is the Honor dels molis del Bazacle, a mill entity in Toulouse, France, constituted in 1418. However, if considering continuously operating businesses, Kongō Gumi, a Japanese construction company founded in 578 AD, is widely recognized as the world's oldest, operating for over 1,400 years before being absorbed by another firm in 2006.

Google search question: Did Honor dels molis del Bazacle have limited liability?

Google answer:

Yes, the Honor dels molis del Bazacle had limited liability, as it was treated as a legal entity distinct from its shareholders as early as the 14th century. This means investors were not directly responsible for the company's debts beyond their investment.

So if you equate "corporation" with limited liability, this also predates the East India Companies, the 17th century, and is something earlier than the first state-created corporations.

The other early "corporation" -- kongo gumi -- did not have limited liability, so maybe was not a "corporation" technically, though "corporation" means much more than just limited liability. This company too had most of the features of the later "corporations" in the 18th & 19th centuries.

Google search question: Was kongo gumi created by the government, or did it exist first before being chartered by government?

Google search answer:

Kongo Gumi was not created by the Japanese government; rather, it was founded in 578 AD by a Korean immigrant named Shigemitsu Kongo, who was invited by Prince Shōtoku to help build Japan's first Buddhist temple, Shitennō-ji. The company then operated as a family-run business for over 1,400 years before becoming a subsidiary of Takamatsu Construction Group in 2006.

But wait -- Was Kongo Gumi even a "corporation"?
Google search question: Was Kongo Gumi a corporation?

Google search answer:

Yes, Kongō Gumi was a corporation, specifically a Japanese construction company specializing in the design, construction, restoration, and repair of shrines, temples, castles, and cultural heritage buildings. Although it was a family-run business for over 1,400 years, it officially became a subsidiary of the Takamatsu Construction Group in 2006.

OK, so here's a real "corporation" from very early, though not having "limited liability" originally, but still a precursor to modern corporations at a time when it had not been created by the state. The above Japanese business became a more modern "corporation" in 2006, but it obviously was not "created" by the government because it already had existed for centuries before becoming an officially-recognized corporation legally.


Here's a different wording of the same question --

Google search question: What was the first corporation?

Google search answer:

While some organizations with corporate-like structures existed earlier, the first modern corporations, specifically those with features like permanent capital, legal personhood, and tradable shares, emerged in the early 17th century, with the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company being the most prominent examples. Earlier forms of corporations, often for public good rather than profit, existed in Europe before this period, such as the Honor dels molis del Bazacle in 1418.

note: "Earlier forms of corporations" PRIOR to the East India Companies and prior to the legally-established corporate form of entity. So originally, the corporations came first, and later governments enacted some controls over them, refashioning them into the modern corporate entities of today.

Google search question: Did the Honor dels molis del Bazacle exist first and then incorporate, or was it created by the government?

Google search answer:

The Honor dels molis del Bazacle existed as a corporate entity before its later nationalization and incorporation into the French national electricity company, EDF, in 1946. It was not created by the government, but rather evolved from earlier, independent milling operations, becoming the earliest known corporate entity with a formal document of incorporation from 1418.

So it's an early corporation which was NOT CREATED BY THE STATE. Rather, it existed first (was "created" earlier) and later became regulated officially by the state. Most businesses are not state entities. A government program like the postal service is a state entity.

But you can claim that the East India Companies were chartered by the state and did not exist prior to this official status being attached to them. So the creation of them was simultaneous to their official incorporation in the state. So you can claim SOME early corporations (not the earliest) maybe were dependent upon their legal status from a state action to create them. However, most corporations do/did not fit this description. So you cannot claim that corporations generally were CREATED by the state, even if some were (probably a small minority of corporations). The East India Companies are not typical examples. If you claim that the IDEA of incorporation was created by the state first, earlier, and this then became a MODEL for all later corporations, that too is false -- even then the earliest-known corporations existed first before later changing into a state-regulated entity which was called "corporation" by the state.

And limited liability also predates the earliest corporations created by the state. So this feature is not exclusive to corporations, or to the state-created corporations, and this earlier existence of a limited liability company proves that this feature was not a creation of the state, but rather that governments in the 17th & 18th centuries borrowed this feature already in existence earlier.

So modern corporations in the U.S. and Europe are not founded originally based on an earlier model created by the state and without which they could not have existed. There are earlier examples than the East India Companies model.

So, in addition to being illogical and nutty to say the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and the American Humanist Association are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights because they are "corporations" with special privileges not available to the rest of us, it also contradicts the facts of history.

The pronouncement "Corporations did not exist until gov't created that legal form of entity" is refuted both by common sense which tells us that the entity which incorporates had to exist first, BEFORE it made the decision to incorporate, and also by the facts of history, which show us that the earliest corporations existed BEFORE they became state-regulated corporations. Though some of them changed or acquired a new status in connection with the state, they were not created into something that did not already exist. An entity does not come into being (is not CREATED) just because it undergoes a change, like acquiring a new legal status.


What the gov't does create are some agencies which otherwise would not exist. It does not create people (employees, bureaucrats, citizens, soldiers, etc.) when it recruits them or hires them or grants them some status. Whatever it creates had to be something which otherwise would not have existed. The state recruited people to become employees etc., but it did not CREATE these employees. Only if those personnel would not have existed otherwise can you say they were "created" by the state.


Other examples of creation vs. non-creation by the state

When the gov't recognizes a native tribe, making it a sovereign nation, it does not thereby CREATE that native tribe, or create that indigenous population or nation. That tribe or nation already existed and gains some new recognition, but it is not CREATED by that gov't action granting it the new recognition. The action changed that group of humans, but that group was there already as something already created earlier. Likewise the corporation already existed (in most cases) before it became legally recognized as a corporation, and its existence is not dependent on any gov't action to "create" it as something new.

The only way you can claim the "state" created it is by claiming that THE STATE CREATES EVERY ENTITY WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES -- all the animals and plants and stones and bodies of water and land masses which were already there before the state existed -- all objects become state-created entities when the state takes over the territory, and it turns everything there into state property, and thus this state property was "created" by the state when it took over and claimed that territory.

So theoretically the state changes all these objects within the territory when it establishes itself as the supreme authority within the territory, so that all the objects become something they were not before, i.e., they become creations by the state, as they become this new state property.

Similarly a new landowner (who was smoking something) could claim that he creates all the objects on his property, when he gains possession of it, because those objects are now changed into something different than they were before, i.e., they change into something subject to the owner's terms as long as they remain on his property -- e.g. the dirt, the trees, the animals (insects, lizards) -- the landowner could claim now that he "created" all these since they have all now changed into something subject to his control. -- starting to sound ridiculous?

Similarly a colonial power like Spain or England could claim they created all the objects on the new lands they conquered. So as they claim ownership over all the natural resources and over all humans and animals, and assert their authority over them, by this logic they also can claim to have CREATED all those objects, which have now become their property, which they were not before.

That's what it's like to claim the state created the corporation. An already-existing entity becomes changed according to some new rules, like the Native American tribes became subject to a new system imposed by the new colonial powers, and so therefore those tribes were CREATED by those colonizers, right? -- because changing someone's status now means that you've created them.

Yet you know such nuttiness as this obviously is not what "create" means. Rather, it means
1. to cause to come into existence; bring into being; make; originate; esp., to make or design (something requiring art, skill, invention, etc.) 2. to bring about; give rise to; cause.

Google Search

None of this happens when a company incorporates. The company is not brought into being by the state when it incorporates, it's not caused to come into existence, it's not originated, or made or designed or caused. It was already there in the first place, caused by something earlier. Even if the new change causes it to take on a new label, still it was not "created" by the state. E.g., when a foreigner becomes a citizen, that doesn't mean the state created this new citizen. Rather, this person already existed, having been "created" earlier, and now s/he gets changed, but is still the same entity as before.

You could claim that every entity is "created" or is RE-created every day. Today you are this day's creature, but tomorrow you will be "created" again as tomorrow's new creature. If this is what you mean when you say the corporation is "created" by the state, then it's something trivial, just as every object is "created" again every day, becoming a slightly different entity than the day before. By emphasizing this triviality, you are demonstrating that your slogan "Corporations are not people" is trivial, and means nothing of relevance to anything that matters.

But the other proposition "Corporations are people" has a real meaning which can be stated honestly and without the phony word games. And that is that corporations are groups of people, and ALL groups of people are included in the 1st Amendment which grants to "the people" the basic rights to free speech, and the other freedoms stated there. So these rights are proper to ALL people, which includes ALL groups of people, with no exceptions. Whereas the slogan "Corporations are not people" is an attempt to exclude some hated human(s) from having 1st Amendment rights, and those saying it cannot identify who they mean -- they can't identify who "corporations" are and what is "not people" about them that they are denied the basic Constitutional Rights. Their slogan cannot be explained by anyone without them contradicting themselves and distorting the words, uttering emotional outbursts to release their hate for something they cannot identify -- and without uttering falsehoods e.g. "corporations are entities created by the state."


The pronouncement "Corporations did not exist until gov't created that legal form of entity" is also a falsehood refuted both by common sense which tells us that the entity which incorporates had to exist first, BEFORE it made the decision to incorporate, and also (refuted) by the facts of history, which show us that the earliest corporations existed BEFORE they became state-regulated corporations, and before the corporate form of entity legally existed. In various circumstances they eventually acquired some status in connection with the state, thus changing and acquiring something new, but not being created into something that did not already exist. An entity does not come into being (is not CREATED) just because it undergoes a change, like acquiring a new legal status.

And of course millions of U.S. corporations existed before they incorporated, both non-profit and for-profit corporations. E.g., nothing could be nuttier than to say the ACLU or Planned Parenthood or the American Humanist Association were CREATED by the state, and that without the incorporation laws these corporations or groups would never have existed.


Here are 2 definitions of "corporation":

a legally established entity that can enter into contracts, own assets and incur debt, as well as sue and be sued—all separately from its owner(s). Because it is defined by law, a corporation can technically exist forever.

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Google Search

(note: "limited liability" is not necessarily part of the definition of "corporation" -- it's a major element generally, but "corporation" can be something without limited liability in some cases; plus also some NONcorporations had limited liability, prior to this feature being instituted by states, so this is not essentially basic or unique to the "corporation" idea in the earliest cases of modern incorporation (17th, 18th, 19th centuries).)


It is "legally established" -- "defined by law"

also "authorized to act as a single entity" and "recognized as such by law"

None of this -- "established" -- "defined" -- "authorized" -- "recognized" -- means that the state CREATED it. Rather, the entity already existed, just as the Native Americans existed already when the colonial powers arrived and asserted authority over them. The gov't asserts its authority over what already exists, establishes or defines it in some way for some purpose, authorizes it or recognizes something about it, but the dominating gov't power DID NOT CREATE this entity which it now puts into some new category or exerts some new power over. The gov't establishes certain positions of responsibility to these entities, it issues licenses or permits or agreements to someone, it protects someone or prohibits or regulates someone or arrests someone, it summons someone, it conscripts someone, it exercises various forms of authority over someone or something there, but it DOES NOT CREATE them.

 

[ZiprHead]

Google search question: Did Honor dels molis del Bazacle have limited liability?

Google answer:
Yes, the Honor dels molis del Bazacle had limited liability, as it was treated as a legal entity distinct from its shareholders as early as the 14th century. This means investors were not directly responsible for the company's debts beyond their investment.

"Legal entity". Who grants legality other than a government?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1a) Look at what has happened with the auto industry--a two-tiered system where the newer people will never earn what the older people get. Why is such an agreement even legally tolerable??

That was something that was demanded by the auto manufacturers. The UAW no longer agrees to that.

Because the UAW was insisting on rates that the companies couldn't afford.

How do you know they couldn't afford it? Did you just blindly believe them?

The UAW agreed. And to a system that's a horrendous screw you, I got mine way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

TBH, I would like to see all advertising, not just political advertising, treated in the same way. You reckon I need to hear about your new treatment for haemorrhoids? If you don't prioritise that need enough to get off your arse and come tell me about it in person, then I don't agree.

If nothing else, such a scheme would provide loads of work for door-to-door salesmen. And would give the public a much needed right of reply.

And we are back to pornography.

How the hell did you get that from that???

I am reminded of the old joke about the guy who gets a Rorschach test from his Psychologist. Each time the doc shows him an ink blot, he says "That's a man and a woman fucking". The doctor says "I suspect you may be obsessed with sex", and the guy responds, "Me?? You're the one with the big book of pornographic pictures!".

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Back to "pornography" as in something that you can't actually define where the edges lie, just a I know it when I see it.

 

[laughing dog]

the slogan "Corporations ​

It is "legally established" -- "defined by law"

also "authorized to act as a single entity" and "recognized as such by law"

None of this -- "established" -- "defined" -- "authorized" -- "recognized" -- means that the state CREATED it.

FFS, stop substituting walls of word salad for reasoning. A corporation is established in order to receive some sort of benefit unavailable to unincorporated entities. Such benefits are bestowed/enforced by the state.

Whether you like it or not, the corporate institution is a state granted form.

Corporations are not people. People cannot legally be sold but corporations can. People catch biolgoical and viral diseases - corporations cannot. People literally have voices - a corporation does not literally have a voice because it has no larynx. Those are just a few examples of why corporations are not the same as people

Since corporations are literally not people, there is no logical or necessary reason to grant them the same rights as people. it may be beneficial to do so. If you are arguing it is beneficial to do so, it is unnecessary to claim corporations are people. Just make the case.

But when you start and persist is such blatant counterfactual inanity, it is hard to take your posts as anything more than pointless pettifogging.

I do give you credit for getting over 200 posts debating such a inane claim.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Google answer:
Yes, the Honor dels molis del Bazacle had limited liability, as it was treated as a legal entity distinct from its shareholders as early as the 14th century.

"Legal entity". Who grants legality other than a government?

The point is: It was NOT CREATED by government.

The Honor dels molis del Bazacle existed as a corporate entity before its later nationalization . . . . It was not created by the government, but rather evolved from earlier, independent milling operations.

So, explain the meaning of "Corporations are not people" without having to say a corporation "is a legal structure created by the state" or other such falsehood. Even if a few corporations were created by the state, most of them were not.

They existed first, as a business or organization or company, and then some of them incorporated, and so became incorporated officially and gained some corporate legal status. This doesn't mean the state CREATED them. Since they already existed prior to incorporating, you cannot say that the state CREATED them by now "granting" this new corporate status to them.

E.g. the corporation Planned Parenthood was once a NONcorporation (founded 1916), and then it incorporated (1942), at which point it became a corporation, but it had already existed for many years PRIOR to incorporating. The same is true for millions of corporations, both for-profit and non-profit corporations. The process of incorporating cannot be what created them, because to "create" something means to bring it into existence, or cause it to exist at the beginning, and most corporations had already existed earlier, prior to acquiring corporate status. So obviously the procedure of acquiring corporate status is not what created them. The state cannot have created them at a point in time after they had already existed.

No, its "creation" has to be its starting point, not some point years later when it undergoes a change of some kind. The change might even involve a name change or change in structure, splitting into 2 or 3 groups, or a joining together of 2 or 3 into one group, etc. But this change is not the "creation" of the organization or company. Even if this is seen as a major change, so the group arrangement becomes partly different than before, it certainly is NOT THE STATE which "creates" the new emerging entity/entities. Rather it is the group itself (or groups) acting on their own choice, not a state action, which creates the new arrangement.

So it's not the state which "creates" the corporation in most cases (99% of them), but the corporation itself doing it, or the person(s) or group(s) forming the corporation, who create themselves/itself into this new entity (if there's anything new about it).

So, why is it necessary to say ". . . it [corporation] is a legal structure created by the state"?

What the state creates it can also destroy, or just refuse to create in the first place. How is the corporation entitled to exist if its existence derives from the state first consenting to create it, without which it cannot exist? Saying it can't exist without the state creating it means its existence is artificial and subject to sudden nullification by the state, according to the state's whim at any moment, and according to whoever is in power. Those in power may legitimately destroy it at their discretion, even confiscate its assets, which have no legitimacy if the corporation's existence has no legitimacy except at the state's whim, especially since the owner is designated "not people" and having no Constitutional rights.



So then we all agree:

Corporations are not created by the state. This point was made earlier and no one has tried to refute it or argue otherwise, though there were responses arguing this or that.

So, what else can we agree on? The following has not been addressed yet (by those who say "corporations are not people"), and it's time to stop pussyfooting around and settle it one way or the other:

Is the ACLU people?
Does the ACLU have 1st Amendment rights or not?

Is Planned Parenthood people?
Does Planned Parenthood have 1st Amendment rights?

Is the NAACP people?
Does the NAACP have 1st Amendment rights?​

The correct answer to each of the above is YES, each of these corporations is people, and each one has 1st Amendment rights. Because ALL groups (corporate and noncorporate) are people, or each group (including each corporation) is people and has 1st Amendment rights. There is no basis for distinguishing any particular kind of group, like corporations, as different than all the others, to say they are "not people" and don't have 1st Amendment rights.

EVERY group having people in it is people and has the basic rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment. We cannot single out corporations (like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and the NAACP) and say they are different, say they're "not people" and so therefore don't have the same basic rights as all other groups and individuals.


So, what's the answer? Be specific. Perhaps name other corporations also. But let's stop the phoniness of saying "corporations" are not people while ignoring all the non-profits, also ignoring 99% of the for-profit corporations, which are small and struggling to survive.

The ACLU, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood are vastly more wealthy than 99% of for-profit corporations. Non-profit status does not mean they're poor and powerless. These 3 non-profits are in an elite wealthy class of corporations, compared to the vast majority of corporations. They have power to publish political propaganda to influence elections far in excess of the average for-profit company.

Every non-profit corporation does its best to MAXIMIZE PROFIT and increase its power and influence over the public, including its influence on voters. Each non-profit corporation chose that category of incorporation because it was the most profitable choice for them, in their individual case. Each one earns more profit for its cause because of its choice to be a "non-profit" corporation rather than a for-profit corporation.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

HARTMANN DISHONESTY SCORE (scoring update, June 10 - August 6)

Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous posts: Sunday at 6:43 AM #129 & Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 -- (Hartmann's problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)


SCORE

June 10 - July 14

10: 4-0-0
11: 1-0-0
12: 0-0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0-0
17: omitted from the survey
18: 2-0-0
19: 2-0-0
20: 0-0-0
23: 0-0-0
24: 4-0-1
25: 1-0-0
26: 2-0-0

(2 weeks omitted, Hartmann gone)

19 - 0 - 1 total June

July

14: 1-0-0
15: omitted from survey
16: 1-0-0
17: 2-0-0
18: 2-0-0
21: 2-0-0
22: omitted from survey
23: 2-0-0
24: 2-0-0
25: 1-0-0
28: omitted from survey (Thom Hartmann absent. All days when he's absent are omitted from the survey, to keep it less complicated.)
29: 2-0-0
30: 1-0-0
31: 1-0-0

August

01: 2-0-0
04: 1-0-0
05: 1-0-0
06: (to be omitted from survey)
__________________
40 - 0 - 1 total to date, batting average still .000

40 "times at bat," 0 hits, one "base-on-balls"
(survey/test resumes 8/7)



(explanation: 40 is the number of times he mentioned the Citizens United case. 0 is the number of times he acknowledged that it was about censoring the Hillary film. The 1 (3rd number) is for one time that he mentioned the case and gave arguments from Justice Kennedy defending the Court's decision. So he presented the case for the other side, but still said nothing about the censorship of the political speech, i.e., suppressing the Hillary film. So the score will show these 3 numbers.)


Here's the point: Thom Hartmann usually mentions the Citizens United case in the program. He always says it was about granting the right to corporations to bribe politicians. But he almost never mentions that it was about whether the FEC may prohibit political speech, and in particular, whether it may suppress a political film -- whether this violates the 1st Amendment protection of free speech. In 2008, the FEC prohibited the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown during the election period. The Court later overruled the FEC action as violating the 1st Amendment rights of Citizens United Inc. to show this film, which was protected as free speech.

It's dishonest to say this decision was about granting freedom to a corporation to bribe politicians but to say nothing about the free speech rights of someone to produce a political film, which this case was about.

The following post is what led to starting this daily scorecard, to measure Thom Hartmann's bias in continuing to present Citizens United as a case which granted bribery rights to "corporations" and not mentioning that it was about the FEC censorship of the political film in 2008.



[IMG alt="ZiprHead"]https://iidb.org/data/avatars/m/0/130.jpg?1739365955[/IMG]

ZiprHead​

Looney Running The Asylum​

Staff member
JoinedOct 22, 2002Messages45,611LocationFrozen in MichiganGenderOld FartBasic BeliefsDon't be a dick.

In his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

To make that statement you obviously do not watch Thom Hartmann. I do so quite often and he has mentioned it quite often.

___________________________________________

So now I've been keeping score, to see how often Thom Hartmann mentions the censorship of the Hillary film. And so far he has mentioned the Citizens United case 40 times, from June 6 to August 5 (not counting a few days when I missed the program), and in all those times he has not mentioned the censorship of the Hillary film once. So he's 0 for 40 so far. So it's not true that "he has mentioned it quite often." Zero times is not "quite often."

Rather, he always repeats the talking point that the Court decision gave companies freedom to bribe politicians. But he never explains that the action by the FEC was censorship, and this is what the Court overruled. And it upheld campaign spending limits, and also upheld the ban on bribery, as long as the bribery is a case of a quid pro quo payment/donation to a politician.

in his program last Friday (6/6) Thom Hartmann finally had the honesty to admit that the Citizens United case was an example of censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary by the FEC. Before this he always just said it was a case of the Supreme Court out of nowhere deciding to give corporations a new freedom to spend all they want on political propaganda, without ever mentioning the censorship of that film by the FEC.

To make that statement you obviously do not watch Thom Hartmann. I do so quite often and he has mentioned it quite often.

Let's do a test of this. I listen to almost every radio show, 9:00 AM - noon M-F, so I'll record how many times he mentions this case by name, including the recorded blurbs, noting how many times he acknowledges that it was a decision to overrule the censorship or suppression of the film about Hillary. (I'll leave out of the score the times when I missed the program.) The ruling also upheld banning of bribery, but limiting "bribery" to cases of a quid pro quo agreement between the parties.

So how often does he tell honestly that it was about whether to suppress/censor/restrict this political film? or that it upholds illegality of quid pro quo bribery?

 

[ZiprHead]

The following post is what led to starting this daily scorecard, to measure Thom Hartmann's bias in continuing to present Citizens United as a case which granted bribery rights to "corporations" and not mentioning that it was about the FEC censorship of the political film in 2008.

Oh, you poor, sweet child. If that was all that CU was about I would have supported the SC's decision. But it wasn't, and you know it.

 

[robnisch]

Did tRump/congress commit murder/manslaughter when they defunded CPB?

 

[laughing dog]

So then we all agree:

Corporations are not created by the state. This point was made earlier and no one has tried to refute it or argue otherwise, though there were responses arguing this or that.

So, what else can we agree on? The following has not been addressed yet (by those who say "corporations are not people"), and it's time to stop pussyfooting around and settle it one way or the other:

. The above is blatantly false. No one agrees with your hair splitting word salad walls of text.

An organization receives legal status a a corporation with all its privileges and responsibilities from the state. You cannot rebut that truth. An organization is composed of people but it is not a person. You cannot rebut that truth.

Whether an organization should be treated the same as a person or have the same rights as a person is a debatable social and political issue.

Basing an answer to that question on the blatantly false and unnecessary premise that corporations are people undermines your argument and reduces your position to mindless ideology.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations are not individual “people” but a legal construction.

Whatever jargon or label you put on them, to categorize them, they are "people" as intended by the 1st Amendment (or framers), having the rights to free speech and free press, etc., like all groups have, regardless whether they're incorporated or not. Branding them a "legal construction" does not change the fact that they are "people" with basic 1st Amendment rights. You cannot deprive people of their basic rights by putting a label on them.

Just because it's popular to scapegoat some groups with the label "corporations" does not mean these groups don't have legitimate 1st Amendment rights.

An individual has rights.

So does a group of individuals. Any group, big or small, rich or poor, corporate or noncorporate. This is what the Supreme Court ruled, and this did not reverse any previous Supreme Court ruling. Several previous Court rulings said essentially the same.

How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous?

Every group has its own rules for expressing something, which in some cases might not be "unanimous" but is the opinion of the group. It's normal for a group to sometimes have a group opinion which is not agreed to by all the members. You cannot dictate to all the groups in society what its rules must be for its decision-making.

Why should a legal construction have rights?

Because every group of any kind has rights, and you cannot deprive anyone (any individual or group of individuals) of their rights by just labeling them a "legal construction." All groups have rights, and no one can explain why this does not apply also to corporations, which are just as legitimate as any other kind of group.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations are not individual “ people” but a legal construction. An individual has rights.
How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous ? Why should a legal construction have rights?

In addition to this, the government gives corporations benefits that individuals don't receive.

and benefits to individuals that corporations don't receive. That the benefits to individuals and groups are not equally given to all does not imply that certain individuals or groups are disqualified from having their basic 1st Amendment rights because they have a certain benefit which another does not have. Even if corporations have some benefit an individual does not have, it does not logically follow that the corporations therefore are "not people" and not entitled to any rights. There's no requirement that all the benefits must be equally distributed to each and every individual or group. There are probably reasons for the inequality of benefits given by government. And if some of this inequality is not legitimate -- is mistaken -- then that can be corrected by changing the benefits. But not by a dogma denying someone ("corporations") their basic rights.

For example, a corporation is taxed at a different rate than an individual and a corporation has much less liability than an individual.

Either of those can be changed if there's a need to change it. Whether it's changed or not, nothing is corrected by the outcry that "corporations are not people" and have no rights. You can fix it by increasing the tax if it should be higher, or by modifying the liability limitation, but not by snorting that "corporations are not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights. Find a proper correction by doing the change in the law, but don't scrap the basic principles of 1st Amendment rights guaranteed to all the individuals and groups ("the people").

How do you make a corporation go to jail for misconduct?

The corporation can be punished in many ways, like any group can be. Obviously individual members of the group can be punished, which is a form of punishing that group.

Corporations and people are not the same thing and they never have been.

But in Constitutional Law corporations are "people" and "persons" because they are GROUPS of individuals, and ALL groups are "people" as intended in the wording. The groups of individuals -- ALL the groups -- have the same basic rights as the individual members of the group -- despite the difference between an individual member of the group and the whole group as a collective body of individuals. It's in the interest of all the individuals that the group of them, as a collective body, also enjoy the same constitutional protections of free speech and free press etc. These basic rights pertain also to the groups, regardless whether the groups and the people "are the same thing" or not.

But right now we have given the corporation all the benefits (limited liability) AND all of the advantages that individuals have (free speech).

But even individuals can gain limited liability -- by simply incorporating.

Google Search question: Can a one-man corporation enjoy limited liability?

Google answer:

Yes, a one-person corporation (OPC) generally provides limited liability, meaning the sole shareholder's personal assets are protected from the company's debts and obligations, as the OPC is a separate legal entity. However, this protection is not absolute; the owner may be held personally liable if they fail to maintain the separation between personal and corporate finances, engage in fraud, or cannot prove the OPC is adequately financed and its assets are separate from their own.

So it's an illusion that corporations are granted special privileges or benefits not available to individuals. Those same benefits are available to individuals who incorporate, which nothing prevents them from doing if it's in their interest. The state offers to the individual the same benefits if s/he chooses to do the procedure to gain those benefits.

And arguably the state should make it easier for an individual to incorporate. You can always complain that the process should be made simpler. But this hardly means that "corporations are not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights. There's very very much in the system which could be made easier. But that's no reason to whine and howl that "corporations are not people" and have no rights.

Our Constitution was written to protect individuals and . . .

and also GROUPS of individuals.

. . . and limit the power of the government. That infers that individuals should also be protected from powerful interests as well.

and also that groups, even the powerful groups, should be protected from anyone (weak or powerful) who threatens them. E.g., businesses are entitled to be protected from striking workers who destroy their property and assault replacement workers. Or of course who assault company executives, or shareholders. But this doesn't mean that the ones threatening someone else are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights.

The Unabomber was an individual who murdered or injured company owners, executives, shareholders in his killing spree, which was an assault on GROUPS as well as on individual members of those groups, and other members of those groups are entitled to protection against any future threats from similar individuals who might do the same in the future. I.e., THE GROUP also is entitled to protection against attack from an individual. Even the powerful are entitled to protection from less powerful individuals who threaten aggression against them. Even a powerful entity can become vulnerable to attack from someone weaker. The weaker per se is not automatically innocent and the more powerful per se not automatically guilty in every case where the interests are in conflict.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is like saying cars are people.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So the Supreme Court was right, after all:
Corporations should not lose their 1st Amendment rights.

No one’s saying groups like the Girl Scouts or churches lose their First Amendment rights.

Fine, we all agree: ALL groups have 1st Amendment rights, including corporations like the Girl Scouts. And including some churches which are corporations, and other churches which are NONcorporations. Because whether it's a corporation or noncorporation is irrelevant -- they're all entitled to keep their 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court was right to overrule the FEC's censorship of the Hillary film which Citizens United intended to disseminate in the media. And so it's pathological to keep obsessing on "corporations" as though they're in a separate category making them "not people" and unentitled to basic free speech rights all others have. So we agree: no groups lose their 1st Amendment rights, because all groups, even corporations (Girl Scouts e.g.) are "the people" intended by the 1st Amendment which protects their free speech rights.

The real issue is whether corporations — legal, profit-driven entities — should have the same political speech rights as individuals.

Of course they should, and always did have those same basic rights long before the campaign reform act of 2002 which abrogated them for the first time. ALL profit-driven individuals and groups, big and small, corporate and noncorporate entities, rich and poor, should have the same basic political speech rights -- no one is giving any reason why not. Every individual and group is "legal, profit-driven" and equally entitled to the same rights as all the others, regardless how profitable they are. E.g., the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood are both profit-driven corporations, having vastly more accumulated wealth and power than 99% of for-profit corporations, most of which are struggling to survive. But all are equally entitled to free speech rights, as the legal profit-driven individuals are, regardless how profit-driven they are or how much or how little profit they acquire.

That’s a different question about power, not about silencing group expression.

Regardless how much power someone has, the basic free speech rights are the same for everyone. Everyone, every group, every individual, rich or poor, weak or strong -- all are entitled to the same basic free speech rights. A homeless beggar is entitled to the same free-speech rights as Elon Musk. And there's nothing wrong with giving some extra power to the homeless beggar, for him to publish his political philosophy, to give him and others like him more power -- BUT,

BUT -- helping the poor to have more speech opportunity does not mean censoring the rich, depriving the super-rich of their 1st Amendment rights, banning their political propaganda, confiscating their publications, consigning their books to the flames, suppressing their political speech, such as the FEC suppressed Citizens United and their film Hillary: The Movie. No! dragging down someone who has more is not the way to increase free speech. Everyone is free to spend all they want on any political speech, or on spreading their political bias, trying to convert the other side, or denouncing some politician or candidate or office-holder.

More freedom and opportunity for the less fortunate does not mean assaulting those who you think have too much freedom. There's no such thing as having too much freedom to speak and promote your beliefs.

All are entitled to not be silenced -- that's what free speech means. And we can go a step farther and say it also means extending power to speak for those who have less power. More free-speech opportunity to all! And no curtailment of speech to anyone -- free speech is something POSITIVE, to promote MORE speech, allow more voices to be heard. Not negative, by committing aggression against those who are already speaking but you think are speaking too much and so should be shut down or silenced.


No absolute freedom to anyone

This is not saying everyone or every group or individual has precisely all the same specific rights, with no distinction whatever -- or that free speech is an ABSOLUTE right with no conditions attached. There are obviously some individual differences -- jury members have some restrictions on their free speech, or some gov't workers are pledged to secrecy, prisoners/convicts are incarcerated (deprived of liberty), etc. etc. etc. There are some special cases individually, where the "rights" are not equal, for practical reasons which are plain for anyone to see.

But the practical reason to limit freedom cannot be simply that you think certain speakers are speaking more than their "fair share" of the speech. No, we need to always increase the speech, or allow MORE of it, not try to suppress some of it. The idea of "free speech" cannot contain in it a limiting factor which says that each person is entitled to only a certain total maximum quantity of speech beyond which the speech is excess and must be suppressed. Even though this sounds good in cases where you're sick of someone you wish would shut up, this can't be applied to real cases -- there's no way to measure the quantity of speech and determine each person's "fair share" of it. And also in too many cases such a "fairness doctrine" as this would be used by a tyrant to silence his opposition, plus also the courts would become overloaded with cases of someone wanting to shut someone up, for personal or subjective motives having nothing to do with the public benefit. There can never be an objective criterion for imposing a quantity limit on free speech, to limit everyone to their "fair share" of speech, beyond which they must be silent. This applies also to a limit based on one's wealth, such that if your total assets are beyond a certain level, then it triggers a cap on your speaking rights, beyond which you must remain silent, and anything you publish beyond that is confiscated.

There's no need for any such cap on free speech, other than a guarantee that anyone must be free to escape having to listen to someone against their will. This includes freedom in public spaces, which are to be protected against excess noise. This right to be free from noise is violated far more by people with loud radios and stereo players than by someone promoting political propaganda.

The Hillary film was suppressed for political reasons, by political factions wanting to censor the opposing side, and not by someone seeking refuge from loud noises. This film was slated to be played on some TV and Internet outlets. For this there is no need for censorship in order to protect people from noise, because they are free to change to a different program or channel. So there was no public benefit to be served by this censorship.


There's no public need served by LESS FREE SPEECH.

Free speech or free press etc. is an extension of freedom, not a curtailment of it -- Everyone has the right to publish political propaganda, regardless of any factors. Even prisoners, convicted felons, terrorists, murderers on death row, are entitled to free speech (or should be). No one's personal circumstance requires that their free speech has to be curtailed.

Having more power or wealth than someone else does not mean you lose any of your freedom to publish something. Everyone rich or poor, group or individual, should be free to publish to the maximum that they choose and not be censored or suppressed in publishing or distributing any kind of political propaganda. There is no legitimacy in placing any restriction on this kind of freedom protected by the 1st Amendment.

Some current restrictions are wrong -- (America is an imperfect nation with mistakes.) -- It's wrong to put limits on the right of foreigners to participate in political campaigns. Even contributions to a candidate probably should not be prohibited. Restrictions like these are done only out of paranoia and hate, not any practical need to curtail the political speech of foreign enemies because they pose any threat.

And the paranoia that the "Oligarchs" buy the elections is nothing new. The winning candidates usually have BOUGHT the elections and the political power -- Going back to the Founding of the country. And way farther back than that. It's nothing new that "the rich" run the country, by buying the elections, or bribing those in power. Virtually no one got elected who was below the middle of the income spectrum. The elections (and policies) have ALWAYS been bought and sold to the highest bidder. Whoever got elected was always someone rich and powerful (or connected to them and controlled by them) -- long before Citizens United, long before any modern trend of election-buying.

Public decision-making and elections could be made better in a million ways. Without needing censorship in any form. It's mostly good that some of "the corporations" crusade for their cause and try to influence voters. Maybe about 10% of this zeal goes bad (or even 20%) and causes more harm than good. And the "wrong" candidate gets elected. Still, the vast majority of the political crusading is more benefit than harm, as a way to get apathetic persons more interested. Instead of clamoring for censorship of the dirty capitalists, those wanting change need to propose something which will make elections better, not worse. Preaching mindless slogans, condemning someone as "not people" and lashing out at scapegoats and suppressing their political speech can only make the whole system worse.

Whatever trend there is toward "the rich" buying the politicians, happening over the last 50 years or so, it's not a result of Citizens United -- rather, it's only a repeat of many earlier trends, which occur in cycles historically, and maybe some of these cases were unhealthy and preventable somehow. But never was such a harmful trend the result of NOT ENOUGH CENSORSHIP OF THE RICH, not enough crackdown on political speech by the FEC ---- no, that was never the cause, and inflicting more censorship onto anyone, like the hated "corporations" or some other imaginary scapegoat, will never make democracy work better.

 

[zorq]

You are excusing corruption because it is old and pervasive. Why? As ubiquitous, as it is, it has ALWAYS been bad. Why are you endorsing something that is universally acknowledged as bad?

When you let the powerful exploit the system to get more power to inevitably use that power to exploit the people you end up with abuse and suffering. It is a pattern repeated throughout history.

Free speech has never been absolutely free. ALL freedoms granted by the US constitution or otherwise have never been absolutely free. Social contracts liberates individuals by restricting them. Choosing where that social contract begins and ends is a job for each society. Recognizing that some speech leads (inevitably) to abuse and suffering is a legitimate reason for restricting it if a society so chooses.

Besides, no corporation is a person in itself. ... So restricting its speech does nothing to reduce the number of voices or opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

ALL our problems could be solved immediately.

You are excusing corruption because it is old and pervasive. Why?

You're excusing it more than I am. There are many final solutions to "corruption" which you're against doing. Our Leader-President could put an instant end to most/all corruption today, throughout the world. He could nuke thousands of nation and state capitals and also the major industrial-commercial centers -- that would put an end to most of the corruption -- within only a few days most of those engaging in this corruption would be dead. (Also the private mansions and other assets of the rich could be targeted.) By opposing such a thorough solution to the problem, you're "excusing" all that corruption which could be ended.

As ubiquitous, as it is, it has ALWAYS been bad.

After eliminating 99% of it, which can be done, it won't be ubiquitous anymore. Why are you against doing this solution which is sure to succeed in eliminating it? in contrast to your censorship solution which probably would not eliminate any of the corruption. Your censorship law (campaign reform bill of 2002) and FEC enforcement of it did not eliminate any corruption.

Why are you endorsing something that is universally acknowledged as bad?

You're endorsing it by opposing a solution which would work far more effectively than any campaign reform law. You're giving the universal argument to always react instantly and impulsively to stamp out any "evil" without pausing to consider the negative consequences.

I'll answer the rest of your arguments later -- I don't have time right now. But nothing you say addresses anything specific about our topic -- other than to just repeat the mindless slogan that "corporations are not people." Your premise throughout is that any knee-jerk impulsive reaction to a problem should always be done without questioning the facts. Your President Trump today is mostly following your advice. You are endorsing his final solution to "illegal aliens" e.g.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

So the Supreme Court was right, after all:
Corporations should not lose their 1st Amendment rights.

No one is arguing to strip all First Amendment protections from corporations. The point—and the holding in Citizens United—is narrower: a specific federal ban on corporate independent electioneering was unconstitutional. That didn’t make corporate rights identical to human rights. Corporate contributions to candidates remain illegal at the federal level, coordination rules still apply, and disclosure/disclaimer rules were upheld. “Some protections” ≠ “the same rights as natural persons.” You still have trouble understanding this easy concept.

Fine, we all agree: ALL groups have 1st Amendment rights, including corporations like the Girl Scouts. And including some churches which are corporations, and other churches which are NONcorporations. Because whether it's a corporation or noncorporation is irrelevant -- they're all entitled to keep their 1st Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court was right to overrule the FEC's censorship of the Hillary film which Citizens United intended to disseminate in the media. And so it's pathological to keep obsessing on "corporations" as though they're in a separate category making them "not people" and unentitled to basic free speech rights all others have. So we agree: no groups lose their 1st Amendment rights, because all groups, even corporations (Girl Scouts e.g.) are "the people" intended by the 1st Amendment which protects their free speech rights.

That’s not the law. Different entities have different scopes of protection. For example, 501(c)(3) nonprofits (like the Girl Scouts and many charities) are barred from campaign intervention; they can’t support or oppose candidates. Foreign nationals and foreign-controlled entities are barred from spending in U.S. elections. Commercial speech by corporations is more regulable than individual political speech. Saying “all groups are the people” erases these real, enforceable limits.

Of course they should, and always did have those same basic rights long before the campaign reform act of 2002 which abrogated them for the first time. ALL profit-driven individuals and groups, big and small, corporate and noncorporate entities, rich and poor, should have the same basic political speech rights -- no one is giving any reason why not. Every individual and group is "legal, profit-driven" and equally entitled to the same rights as all the others, regardless how profitable they are. E.g., the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood are both profit-driven corporations, having vastly more accumulated wealth and power than 99% of for-profit corporations, most of which are struggling to survive. But all are equally entitled to free speech rights, as the legal profit-driven individuals are, regardless how profit-driven they are or how much or how little profit they acquire.

Factually wrong on two fronts. First, corporations did not “always” have the same election-spending rights: Austin (1990) upheld bans on corporate independent expenditures, and McConnell (2003) upheld key BCRA restrictions. Citizens United overruled that line—so, no, this wasn’t how it “always” was. Second, the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood are nonprofit corporations, not “profit-driven,” and 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from endorsing or opposing candidates. Your premise collapses: not all groups are treated the same, and calling nonprofits “profit-driven” is simply incorrect.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

Condensing your last half:

Lumpen wrote:


Regardless how much power someone has, the basic free speech rights are the same for everyone… A homeless beggar is entitled to the same free-speech rights as Elon Musk…

….

Equal dignity, yes—but the law draws real distinctions. Campaign finance has long allowed limits and source bans to prevent corruption and its appearance (e.g., contribution limits, foreign-national bans, 501(c)(3) campaign prohibitions, coordination rules, disclosure). So no, not “the same” in every context.

Lumpen wrote:


Helping the poor speak more doesn’t mean censoring the rich… The FEC suppressed Citizens United’s Hillary film—book-burning isn’t the answer…


….

Citizens United struck down BCRA’s blackout on corporate-funded electioneering near elections. That was a targeted election rule, not a general ban on political ideas. And CU did not erase other limits (candidate-contribution bans, coordination rules, disclosure stayed).

Lumpen wrote:

Everyone is free to spend all they want on any political speech…

….


False. Corporations and unions still may not give directly to federal candidates. Foreign nationals can’t spend in U.S. elections. 501(c)(3)s can’t endorse or oppose candidates. Government contractors face limits. “Everyone can spend unlimited” is simply wrong.

Lumpen wrote:


Inequality is irrelevant; just counter speech with more speech…

….

The problem isn’t “unequal views”; it’s state-chartered entities using limited liability and pooled capital to massively amplify speech beyond any individual’s voice. That structural leverage—not mere disagreement—is what distorts elections.

Lumpen wrote:


There can be no objective ‘fair share’ cap on speech; any cap invites tyranny…

….

Straw man. No one proposes “word quotas.” The tools are money rules—contribution limits, source bans, disclosure, public financing, and coordination bars—not caps on ideas or words.

Lumpen wrote:


Noise is the only valid restraint; people can change the channel…

….


Election law isn’t about decibels; it’s about quid-pro-quo risks, capture, and voter information. CU itself upheld disclosure so voters can see who’s paying.

Lumpen wrote:


Even prisoners and foreigners should have full speech; bans are paranoia…

….


Legally wrong. Prisoner speech is limited for security/penological interests. Foreign-national spending is prohibited in U.S. elections. Those are long-standing, constitutional distinctions.

Lumpen wrote:


The rich have always bought elections; CU didn’t cause anything new…

….


History of influence doesn’t justify legalizing more of it. After CU (and SpeechNow), Super PACs and outside spending exploded—a material change driven by doctrine, not just technology.


Lumpen wrote:


CU merely stopped censorship; restore more speech, never less…

….

CU removed one electioneering ban; it didn’t turn corporations into natural persons with identical political rights. The Constitution protects human speakers; treating state-created asset shields as equivalent citizens is the distortion we’re pointing to.

Lumpen wrote:


If you want fairness, don’t “silence” anyone—let billionaires and corporations spend freely, same as everyone…

….

Individuals have broad speech rights; corporate treasuries are a legal construct with state-granted advantages (limited liability, perpetual life). Regulating how that construct deploys money in elections is not silencing people—it’s guardrails on a tool the state created.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

It appears this thread has taken a slight turn. The issue is money, not speech, and that money can now be used by corporations to amplify political speech.

 

[zorq]

ALL our problems could be solved immediately.

You are excusing corruption because it is old and pervasive. Why?

You're excusing it more than I am.

...

You're endorsing it by opposing a solution which would work far more effectively than any campaign reform law. You're giving the universal argument to always react instantly and impulsively to stamp out any "evil" without pausing to consider the negative consequences.

LOL.


Yeah. That's right. How silly of me! I should have proposed global genocide as a solution to corruption. How did that not occur to me???!!! I guess I was too busy NOT thinking of the negative consequences to come up with this quick and easy solution! By refusing to advocate for global genocide I am showing myself to be the true opponent of corruption and I have also proven that I don't consider negative consequences!

You don't take any of this seriously, do you? Are YOU even a person?