As published in Umair Haque's Harvard Business Review blog:
I'm highly impressed with your recent decision to vaporize limits on corporate political spending. It's the kind of campaign finance reform our ailing res publica needs. In fact, I found it so inspirational, here's an even better idea.
Let's give corporations the right to vote. One share, one vote. The logic? It's simple. Corporations are people; all people are created equal; ergo, corporations must have equal rights — and no right is more important than the right to vote. (Well, maybe the right to buy fully automatic machine guns, but that's another story).
Goldman Sachs, for example, has 514,080,000 shares outstanding — so they'd get 514 millon votes (in fact, maybe we should give them more, because they're so smart). Ford has 3.31 billion shares outstanding, so they'd get approximately 2.8 billion more votes than Goldman.
I've discussed this with several other economists, and we all agree: it's the most efficient solution. Why, it should save hundreds of millions in lobbying alone. Who needs K Street when corporations can simply, quickly, easily vote in the candidate of their choice? As a bonus, political scientists agree that the increasing polarization between left and right would quickly disappear, too. Human people — with their perpetual squabbling — would be simply outvoted by corporate people, who know what's good for everyone.
But the most lucrative upside is this. The money that's saved can then be invested in the high-value products and services which our publicly traded corporations, the Goliaths of the global economy, excel at — like toxic CDOs, bigger burgers, and mega bonuses. And if we've learned anything over the last 30 years, it's this: everyone's better off when the benefits of more mass-produced stuff trickle down to the average (lazy, shiftless) Joe.
It's time to save our democracy, Justices — through a better kind of democracy. I call it "corpocracy": power to the people who matter most, corporations. Democracy 2.0: it's the next stage in the evolution of the American Dream.
It's not just humans who are people. We've been discriminating against corporate people for too long, and it's unethical. Are you with me, Justices? Its time to liberate corporations from human oppression. Here's hoping it's your legacy.
Posts
15 comments:
Here, I guess this needs to go here...
In my humble opinion, I believe the Supreme Court got it wrong today. I don't believe corporations have any rights according to the Constitution. I believe they(Bill of Rights)were individual rights and that they cannot be confered to corporations. I was holding out hope this decision would start putting a wedge between corporations and the federal government, but alas the Court didn't see it this way.
As long as 527s and unions are allowed to exist in their current fashion then SCOTUS got this right. Last I checked, they are just entities that exist to market political influence. Not a bad widget to be selling today. The 527s and unions now have competition.
I don't have a problem with the decision either. It isn't like corporations can now give massive amounts of money directly to politicians. If they want to pay for an advertisement for or against someone, why not?
They tried not to go this far in their decision a couple years ago. But the FEC just keeps trying to overreach with their regulations
The problem lies in the fact multi-national corporations and the federal government are in bed together. And they aren't sleeping in that bed; they are fucking. And if you are in the position of fucking someone you aren't really in a position to make a decision, a wise decision, against your fuck buddy.
Also, what is to stop a foreign based company from influencing a US national election. Did you think of that?
To me the only way to stop this coital situation in Washington is to go back to a strict federalist system. Let these corps deal with 50 states instead of one love nest in D.C. Do you believe me now, csm?
Nothing stops the individual shareholders from donating to candidates and from making commercials or documentaries to make a political point. But corporations aren't people. Are we now going to let corporations have the right to bear arms?
The Bill of Rights are an individual's rights. These rights are natural inherent rights because we are human beings. Corporations aren't human beings. And g, I am surprised at you. I thought you were in favor of a "dead" Constitution. The word "corporation" does not show up in the Constitution, therefore there shouldn't even be a question as to whether corps have these inherent rights.
verification word: culte
Is the RNC or DNC an "individual"? Or is it a group of like-minded individuals promoting a particular agenda? Why should one group be permitted to this kind of "speech" while other groups are forbidden? Newspapers are allowed to print op/eds discussing candidates, even making specific recommendations. Is that speech somehow regarded as more "free" than the SEIU or GM sending out a mailer or putting an ad on TV that explains how they think an election will effect them? How would you feel about congress making a law banning all news organizations from discussing candidates or issues within 60 days of an election? It's the same 1st Amendment.
Can we say that the 4th Amendment (against illegal search & seizure) is not applicable to corporations? Would you say that the 6th (speedy trial & confrontation of witnesses in criminal prosecutions), 7th (right to a jury trial in civil cases), or 8th (re: no excessive fines) don't apply to corporations?
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
I don't see anywhere that this guaranteed right is only available to an individual (as opposed to a collective of individuals). You point out that the word "corporation" is not found in the constitution. That's true. But neither is the word "individual."
In my view, there are only two issues of constitutionality that need to be answered:
1-Did congress make the law?
2-Does the law abridge the freedom of speech?
The answer to both of those questions is unquestionably "yes."
Do I like the amount of "special interest" money going into campaigns? Absolutely not. But whether I like the way things are isn't the question. The question is about constitutionality.
Here are a couple articles on the decision from my "hometown" paper that might interest some. I should note that this newspaper's op/ed section has always had a decidedly Libertarian perspective.
Editorial: Happy ending to 'Hillary movie' case
Supreme Court: A win for the First Amendment
As I've been reading through the various opinions about this decision, there was one sentence from Tim Rutten of the LA Times that struck me. He hates the decision, which isn't unexpected at all. But his comment that got me thinking was that it "...will further undermine the influence of the parties at a time when U.S. politics seem increasingly chaotic.
Of course, he's mentioning this point as a negative. But as I thought about it, I can't really imagine any better result from this decision. Decreasing the influence of the parties (just the two main ones, really) is one of the things we need in campaigns. Right now, both sides can get away with "framing the debate" in a certain way. Now there will be a lot more resources to bring out different aspects of the debate that the parties might not want you to hear.
Another comforting thing I've seen is that this decision has caused all of capitol hill to start scurrying around like headless chickens. If it strikes immediate fear into entrenched leaders, my inference is that they're worried about their current chokehold on political power.
"How would you feel about congress making a law banning all news organizations from discussing candidates or issues within 60 days of an election? It's the same 1st Amendment."
Are you forgetting the First Amendment also provides for the freedom of the press?
"Can we say that the 4th Amendment (against illegal search & seizure) is not applicable to corporations? Would you say that the 6th (speedy trial & confrontation of witnesses in criminal prosecutions), 7th (right to a jury trial in civil cases), or 8th (re: no excessive fines) don't apply to corporations?"
My opinion is that no, the Constitution does not protect a corporation against illegal searches or speedy trials or excessive fines. Congress can make these rules and with these large corps in bed with the politicians I don't doubt they would get the same treatment as an individual.
You never answered my question, Do you think corporations have the right to bear arms?
Now I don't think it unConstitutionalto let like-minded individuals getting together to push a political agenda up until the election, I am against the public company structure, an entity not formed to promote a political point, but to make a profit(and I am vehement capitalist), from getting in the political arena.
You also didn't answer my question about foreign based companies who have large US subsidiaries and their right to get politically involved.
Corporations are people and yes indeed those people have a all the rights sponsored by the Constitution. Why would it be koshers for 527s and even Unions to alter, influence and inhibit political reforms but a business could not?
Now Big O is upset due to his constant bashing of the "fat cats" who he likes to blame for our economic down turn. In truth, it has been the decisions of congress and Big O who have lead to these issues. Business will not have the opportunity to respond. I believe this is beneficial to the process.
The constitution does not spell out Habeas corpus for enemy combatants but yet we have found an avenue for arguing a case that this magical document does. It is no stretch to make a case for what SCOTUS has ruled.
I haven't forgotten about freedom of the press. But aren't most news organizations owned by corporations? Some of them are even owned by foreign corporations. NPR and PBS receive quite a bit of support from corporations. So should they be banned from political advocacy during certain periods?
If you don't think that the Constitution protects corporations, then you're going to face some serious problems. If the 4th amendment doesn't apply, then what argument is there against the government seizing all their records without a warrant (AT&T, Google, etc.)? Any real privacy we maintain is DEPENDENT upon those constitutional protections extending to organizations and businesses as well as individuals.
Do I believe the 2nd amendment applies to corporations? Yes. Why not? Aren't corporations already legally permitted to own weapons? At the same time, I'd need to hear an explanation of how a corporation can "bear" them.
As for foreign corporations, they are a different story (as are foreign citizens). They are not necessarily granted the same constitutional protections. But it's an incredibly complicated issue.
I'd like to know what you think is the down side to letting corporations spend money to advocate for certain issues and/or candidates.
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
--Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
Part 1
Ok, this projectedly long post will try to answer all questions and comments of the last few posts.
"Corporations are people and yes indeed those people have a all the rights sponsored by the Constitution."
This is one of the dumbest posts I have ever witnessed on this blog. Look up the definition of the word, Mike. Corporation are indeed populated with persons, but they are created so that the assets and liabilities are not borne by those persons. It is an organizational structure, not a biological one. Here is a couple of judicial quotes on the issue...
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it."
Chief Justice John Marshall
"The State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere...Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed."
William Rehnquist
Now I am not speaking of political organizations, religious organizations, neighborhood organizations, civic organizations, I am speaking of corporations, economic entities. I don't even think the wealthy, on an individual basis, should be restrained through voice, written words or money when it comes to political thought. And shareholders and management of corporations have the full benefit of the First Amendment and can further the causes to benefit their respective corporations, but I do not believe the actual corporations have this legal ability.
"NPR and PBS receive quite a bit of support from corporations. So should they be banned from political advocacy during certain periods?"
I have been an avid listener to NPR for decades, and though I would grant you it's left-leaning bias(you have not heard me talk back to my radio, but my co-workers could attest to this fact), I have never ever heard NPR back one candidate over another in all that time. Fox News has a definite bias, but as far as I know, and maybe I am wrong, they have never backed one candidate over another. And as I have said before, I am OK with the biased leanings of the press as I recognize the special seat the press has in this society as did the Founders. And it is the duty of the citizenry to get as educated and well-rounded as they can get on government dealings by listening to as many different voices as they can.
Part 2
"If you don't think that the Constitution protects corporations, then you're going to face some serious problems. If the 4th amendment doesn't apply, then what argument is there against the government seizing all their records without a warrant (AT&T, Google, etc.)?"
As I have posted before, this is a job for Congress to make laws regarding corporations and the security of those corporations against these governmental vagaries. Granted, it would have been nice to have these laws in place(and maybe they are already to some extent), but I fail to see how the Constitution comes into this. I will say that with the power the federal government has been able to amass these last few decades(let's say from FDR)we have stepped over these bounds already, but it is up to Congress to rectify this, not the Bill of Rights.
"Do I believe the 2nd amendment applies to corporations? Yes. Why not? Aren't corporations already legally permitted to own weapons? At the same time, I'd need to hear an explanation of how a corporation can "bear" them."
Corporations can't "bear" arms because they aren't citizens. Only people can bear arms. And this is where I get my opinion(and I am not alone) that the Bill of Rights are for individuals, not economic entities. This is the only country in the world which was formed for the individual and the individual's interests.
"As for foreign corporations, they are a different story (as are foreign citizens). They are not necessarily granted the same constitutional protections. But it's an incredibly complicated issue."
It is only complicated if you believe as you do. But as long as we are going to give foreign combatants habeas corpus rights, maybe you are right(as I shrug).
"I'd like to know what you think is the down side to letting corporations spend money to advocate for certain issues and/or candidates."
Don't you read my posts? I believe the main problem we have is the constant love affair between the federal government and large international corporations. And I think the answer is strict federalism. Let these corporations deal with 50 states instead of one inviting love nest. Will we have built this country into what it is today, the richest in the world, probably not. Would we have gotten ourselves into the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq I and II, probably not. Is it easier for citizens to detect corruption at the state level instead of Washington, I believe so. And this still raises the conundrum I have with Progressives, why if they are as anti-corporation as they say they are; why they do not embrace federalism, the exact thing which would bring untold fear into corporate board rooms. I have never had a Progressive answer that question for me. It probably comes down to power, I guess.
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
--Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
This is only a problem because we have gotten away from federalism and the full power of the federal government is now very, very powerful and that was not the original intent of our Union. The federal government's main duty was to protect our individual civil rights, not get in bead with special interests, i.e. corporations. The problem does not lie with the Constitution, corporations(they do what would come naturally to them), the citizenry or the press; the problem lies with the fact the federal government has built a power grid which only flows one way, in the direction of Washington, D.C.
Bawdy I love you but you are ridiculous. The government has been in bed with special interest from the very beginning. It is the game. You don't seem to realize that businesses have been working through the 527s and the Unions all along. This ruling is not a big deal other than the fact they can now be more out in the open.
Why should the Big O be allowed to come out and constantly attack business and they not be allowed to respond? You and O seem to have the same opinion that business is the big bad bully at the end of the block who wants to take your lunch money. Business produces the jobs and if America makes in much harder they will take the jobs elsewhere.
This illusion you have that the constitution somehow prohibits this ruling is frankly ridiculous. This nation was practically 100% agriculture in the 1780s therefore they didn't feel to deal with it. This is more opinion than anything else.
Mike, you confuse "business" with "corporations". Business comprises all capitalistic organizations whether a mom 'n pop restaurant, GM or some guy on E-Bay. I don't have many issues with corporations as the things they do are natural to them. It is not unreasonable for a corporation to try to stifle competition, it makes perfect sense actually. My problem is with the federal government because they are not supposed to pick sides. They are not supposed to pick winners. And when the federal government gets this powerful, these problems get magnified exponentially. So my problem isn't with business or capitalism, it is with our federal government.
One last point, because my issue is with the federal government and not corporations, I am confident in saying I have very little in common with Obama as I see him as the crux of the problem; he and his unConstitutional vision of what the job of President is all about.
Bawdy, I think there are a few points that you're missing here.
1 - Corporations are not all multinational conglomerates. In fact, it was brought up during the course of the SCOTUS hearings that around 97% of the corporations in the US are "mom & pop" small businesses. And the attorneys defending the law that was struck down admitted that it would cover things like pamphlets as well (any kind of electioneering communication). So if the owner of Joe's Liquor Store had an Obama or McCain bumper sticker on his windows within 60 days of the election, then he would be in violation of federal law and facing a prison sentence. While I doubt that the FEC would be running around the country looking for "Joes" to prosecute, the fact that it was illegal under the statute is the only thing that matters. That instance is a clear violation of both the letter and intent of the 1st amendment.
2 - In this particular case before the court, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of Citizens United is political advocacy. But they were forbidden from airing their movie (on Pay Per View, mind you) or ads about it, even though it was just a movie ABOUT Hillary Clinton. As far as I know, the movie didn't even suggest how one should vote.
You mentioned that you are not speaking of political organizations, but that's exactly who was squelched in this case.
3 - I understand and agree with your disdain for the influence of "big business" in politics. But this law was on the books for 7 years. Did it do ANYTHING to diminish that influence? If there is any difference at all, it seems to me that big business and the unions exert MORE influence today than they did a decade ago.
In fact, Justice Alito pointed out during arguments that more than half the states permit this kind of independent expenditures, and asked if those states were any more corrupt than the others. The attorney basically dismissed any relevance of the states' experiences compared to the judgment of Congress.
As for foreign-owned corporations, Congress is free to make a law restricting their influence. But that isn't what they did. They restricted EVERY corporation, across the board. And one of the main problems that the court had with this law is that it was overly broad. One of the points made was that for the court to allow a restriction of constitutional rights, there has to be a clear, compelling interest for the government to do so, and it must be done in a very specific, directed way.
4 - Another problem that came up in arguments was that according to this law, if an organization that DOES have the right to air these advertisements has received a single dollar in contributions from a corporation, then they would be in violation. So if they receive a check from Joe's Liquor Store for $10, they need to check to make sure Joe hasn't been incorporated.
5 - The court does not take laws and try to pare them down to make them constitutional. Their decision doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional to pass any kind of law that limits corporate expenditures in any way. Their decision was that this law, as written, was written in an overly broad way, to the point that it ended up restricting the kind of political speech that is specifically supposed to be protected by the 1st amendment.
Even if McCain-Feingold DID reduce (or even eliminate) special interest influence AND operated in a constitutional manner 99.9% of the time, the fact that it was broad enough to overstep in this ONE instance means that the law is an unconstitutional restriction.
It is up to congress to rewrite their laws in a way that DOES fall in line with the Constitution. They could probably legitimately make a law that bans this kind of behavior for any corporation that has a single owner, board member, or shareholder who is a foreign national. They probably could open up this kind of expenditure to shareholder lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty.
I honestly think this decision is a good thing for the country.
Post a Comment