Corporations do not have "human rights"

[clear eye]

I strongly object to the ACLU'S and the Supreme Court's muddle-headed attribution of free speech rights to corporations, especially political speech, as nothing in the Constitution gives such interpretation any support, and as the consequences directly conflict with the political rights of individuals which are constitutionally protected. Only lawyers could possibly get so confused about what sort of entity is referred to in the phrase "civil liberties" and what is the "human" in "human rights".

To clarify: a corporation is a particular type of contractual ownership freeing the owners from certain liabilities in exchange for accepting certain limits on the use of the assets covered. The only "rights" a corporation has are those the state includes in its charter as necessary to carry out its contractually defined business.

This limitation is vital to the exercise of many of the rights of individuals, since corporations have the advantage over individuals in often controlling wealth amassed from many people and not being subject to many of the penalties that can be imposed on human beings. Additionally the individuals both who own and who are employed by corporations are constrained in the use of corporate assets to speech which furthers the one legal goal of a for-profit corporation, i.e. creating profit, no matter how they may feel personally on any particular issue. Therefore ALL such speech and representations are commercial speech. There is an element of extortion, in opposition to human rights, in extending the corporate contract to the use of earnings from the labor of individuals to influence elections in ways those individuals may feel are against their own interests and with which they strongly disagree. The speech of the corporation is not the speech of the individuals connected with it, but is, in fact, commercial speech. That is the basis for the distinction between for-profit corporations and other types of associations (like the ACLU) which may be organized expressly to advocate for points of view held by those who choose to join them.

Even without outright advocacy, corporations exert undue influence on individual expression because of their ability to threaten withdrawal of advertising revenue from the few mainstream media outlets with large audiences. Granting them the "right" to use their deep pockets to dominate political discussion in those few readily available mainstream media outlets only further causes individual speech to take a back seat to commercial, i.e. corporate, speech.

Restrictions on corporate speech would not prevent the investors from withdrawing or borrowing against a portion of their assets to use for expressing their viewpoints according to their consciences either solo or in concert with others. It is another issue whether representative democracies have the right to limit how much may be spent by a single entity on political expression, and whether such spending limitations detract from or enhance civil liberties, political expression, and human rights as a whole.

[Bob Dobbs]

1. Corporations are not eternal.

They should have a life span of only 50 years or less codified in the charters granted by states. This was the original concept of incorporation in this country and must be returned to stop the absurd power of the global corporofascists.

[tbyg52]

3. Word.

Immortal things with the rights of actual human beings - not right!

I was not aware that the ACLU was defending corporations. They really need to knock that off.

[clear eye]

5. They haven't taken cases like that lately, but they also haven't changed their position.

I emailed the director a couple of months ago, and he kindly responded saying that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and wouldn't I support them for all their other good activities. I replied that I'll support PFAW, Common Cause, the Lawyer's Guild, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, instead.

[tbyg52]

6. You're right about that

I'll have to rethink where that part of my money goes, as well.

[Rabia]

11. Maybe.....

Maybe, like the finance industry, the corrupt corporate system will simply collapse from the weight of it's own unregulated stance. Deregulation, after 'sucking' the money out of the economy, usually causes it's own collapse through it's lack of structure.

[TaranAlvein]

7. Ehh, perhaps...

But in the end, if we do that then we'll just be putting ourselves at a disadvantage to all of the foreign super-rich omnipotent corporations. Besides, all of those chuckleheads would probably just find some loophole or other anyhow, and so the most powerful of the corporations would only gain even more power over the weaker ones and the small businesses. Of course, it's entirely possible that such a set-up could actually be beneficial to us, but I'm not so sure. That's something that can only be learned via real-world testing.

[eShirl]

2. I regret that I have but one rec to give to this thread

kick

[clear eye]

4. Ha ha!

Thanks.

[johnnypopulist]

8. Agreed.

One thing I wish Obama would bring up more often is the amount of influence and power corporations have amassed over the past 30 years or so. I firmly believe corporate power threatens the very fabric of our democracy. Sarah Palin may not be able to bring up a Supreme Court case she disagrees with but I can name at least one, and that's Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) which ruled that: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” Basically gave it 14th Amendment protection as a "person."

[joenole2112]

9. Trying to start new, related thread regarding Florida Supreme Court decision

Hello all: I'm brand new to DU and this forum.  As a law
student I was also appalled that the individual right of
freedom of speech given to all citizens was extended to
corporations.  My main complaint is that it limits the ability
of state and Federal government to regulate corporate
political contributions and advertising messages.

I have another thread that I'd like to bring up.  I sued the
Florida Supreme Court for violating my civil rights.  My
argument is that they refused to investigate Bar complaints
that I filed against a prosecutor, Lorena Bueno, ASA, who
engaged in unethical and even criminal behaviors at trial in
order to wrongfully convict (that is one of many tools that
Fla and Texas--the biggest violators so far--to convict
innocent people.  Check out the Innocence Project if you
haven't already).  Specifically, she engaged in conspiracy to
commit perjury with the police and a former neighbor of mine.
The police had already made a false police report and
committed perjury consistent with that report. However,the
prosecutor wanted more damning testimony so she asked for
additional lies from my neighbor and the police.  The main
charge was that my exwife claimed that I came at her snipping
hedge clippers and stating that I was going to cut her head
off--revenge for a break up.  She told the truth in a
pre-trial deposition and admitted that she made it up, but
they prosecuted me anyway.  First they put me under an onerous
PTI agreement, which held the charges over my and prevented my
working as an attorney.  Next they took the case to trial, but
failed to contact my ex and had to dismiss the charges.  I
thought I won, but they just rearrested me the next week, took
me to jail, strip searched me, punched me in the balls while
patting me down, and claimed that the prosecutor wanted to
violate me as much as possible.  The case went to trial a
second time against my ex-wife's will.  She did not want to
prosecute and even stated from the stand that she did not want
to be there for the obvious reason that if she told the truth
she could be arrested for filing a false complaint.  This has
happened before in this jurisdiction.  So, did she go back to
the he's cutting my head off story?  No, she made up a third,
false story stating that I pointed the hedge clippers at her
and backed her up against the front door, and she fled fearing
that I would plunge the hedge clippers into her chest.  By
that time we were divorced, so she gave the state what they
wanted--enough perjury to convict.  She gets to go home.

My case is on appeal.  I filed a complaint against the
prosecutor and the Florida Bar dismissed it without
investigation.  I filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the
Florida Supreme Court and they dismissed citing Tyson v.
Florida Bar.  In Tyson, the court said that it was a matter of
prosecutorial discretion under less there was an equal
protection violation.  I filed a second Petition for Writ of
Mandamus arguing that there was an equal protection violation
because the Florida Bar showed a pattern of refusing to
investigate complaints against government lawyers, but
zealously prosecuted complaints against private lawyers
(particularly defense lawyers like myself).  They dismissed my
second petition after I re-filed it after two or three weeks
of failing even to acknowledge that it existed.  Despite the
fact that I made new arguments, they called my attorney and
said that filing multiple Petitions was "whacko."  I
feel honored to be called "whacko" by the Florida
Supreme Court for suggesting that government prosecutors have
to play by the same rules as all other attorneys in Florida!!!

Next, I felt like this dismissal violated my constitutional
right to equal protection of the laws, so I sued the Justices
of the Florida Supreme Court for violating my civil rights. 
Worse still, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that my bar
complaint against State Attorney Willie Meggs will not be
considered until after Meggs retires. In other words, no
matter how egregious the ethical violation, The Florida Bar
will not investigate or prosecute a State Attorney's violation
of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.  Nifong got
disbarred, but Meggs has nothign to worry about in ultra-right
wing Florida.  

The local papers will NOT cover this issue.  In fact, the
Tallahassee Democrat contact I was speaking to will not even
return my telephone calls or e-mails.  So much for the
"liberal media bias."  So please get the word out to
underground media sources.  I've sent my pleadings to Mother
Jones, The New Republic, 60 Minutes, etc., but have not got a
response yet.  Hopefully, I'll live thru this civil rights
activism.  The police intimidation has been pretty bad (the
worst being an officer making a "we'll blow your brains
out" gesture with his hands.  SWAT truck drive bys and
driving by my house every morning glaring at me is just
comical.  Going into restaurants and the library in plain
clothes is a little annoying.  A GPS monitor on my car is
going way too far.  does anyone know hot to detect these
things?  Illegal trespass and they don't hesitate to do it.  

Anyway, write back with your thoughts and help me get the word
out--Florida Supreme Court sued for civil rights violations. 
In another civil suit I ask that Florida be placed under a
mandate to reform the criminal justice system due to pattern
of police and prosecutorial misconduct.  Again, see Inncocence
project website.  Texas is making reforms under black DA Craig
Watkins, but Florida, despite paying a million dollars to Alan
Crotzer, doesn't even want to acknowledge that there is a
problem.  That's what we get from three straight Republican
Governors!!!!  A completely unaccountable government.
Peace,
Joe

[Rabia]

10. The corporate system is feudal

<<.....the individuals both who own and who are employed by corporations are constrained in the use of corporate assets to speech which furthers the one legal goal of a for-profit corporation, i.e. creating profit, no matter how they may feel personally on any particular issue. Therefore ALL such speech and representations are commercial speech. There is an element of extortion, in opposition to human rights, in extending the corporate contract to the use of earnings from the labor of individuals to influence elections in ways those individuals may feel are against their own interests and with which they strongly disagree. The speech of the corporation is not the speech of the individuals connected with it, but is, in fact, commercial speech. That is the basis for the distinction between for-profit corporations and other types of associations (like the ACLU) which may be organized expressly to advocate for points of view held by those who choose to join them.>>

The above statement completely describes what I see as aspects of the corporate system that destroy human rights and human autonomy. These aspects use corporate employees as pawns, even attempting to influence them in their voting preference. I've lost more that one corporate position because my political orientation was not at all conservative enough to fit into the trend towards which untransparent company policy was steering employees.

The main point of survival is gainful employment. The basis for survival is therefore economic. The political system significantly exists to promote and protect economic interests on a business level. And there are no checks and balances built into the governmental structure that includes business. There are few regulations and there is little or no enforcement of regulations that exist. And transparency in business is all but non-existent. So if business so desires, it can through economic totalitarianism 'rule' the populus and 'govern' the manner of oversight.

This is what has occurred during the previous administration. and what has been growing in momentum, strength, and power since reaganomics. The American people have been employed within a system of business that has fast been moving towards an economic dictatorship.

I am totally in favor of both business and labor thriving in concert. I see no necessity in subjugating labor to survive and prosper as a business

[JimLC]

12. I agree...

Corporations can't vote and currently have too much influence over elections anyway.

[dipsydoodle]

13. In theory they must have

because under American patent law they have the same rights as private individuals. Goes back to the thirties - think so anyway. It's a complicated issue with many downsides as has become apparent over the years.