Can Corporations Fall in Love?
The other day, Tom Degan commented on one of our posts. Attached to his comment was a link to his blog. Jumping over there, I was pleasantly surprised and I would like to share his take of the SCOTUS ruling on free speech as it relates to corporations. He questions weather they really are persons by asking:
Do corporations think?
Do corporations weep?
Do corporations fall in love?
Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?
Do corporations have loved ones?
Are corporations even capable of loving?
Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?
Do corporations feel your pain?
Can a corporation run for public office?
Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: “So these two corporations walk into a bar….”)
If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: “It”)
Can a corporation register to vote?
We all know that corporations have made a shit-load of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?
Is a corporation capable of raising a child?
Does a corporation have a conscience? Does it feel remorse after it has done something really bad?
Just something to think about this Saturday evening as you’re getting ready to sit down in front of the news. They go on, but I wanted to give you just a few to whet the appetite.
I’m also wondering if the reverse is true: Has anyone ever fallen in love with a corporation?
Related posts:
Corporations can’t fall in love any more than MoveOn.org can. However, the individuals comprising the entities can. Are you advocating muzzling MoveOn?
Both moveOn and corporations have PACs that can contribute to candidates. Why do they need anything else.
But “personhood” is beside the point. The First Amendment doesn’t say “Congress can’t restrict any person’s free speech.” It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …”
So the prohibition on abridging freedom of speech refers to Congress’ power to do it at all. Not about who (i.e., “persons”) are protected by this limitation on Congressional power.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” period. No mention of individuals, groups, PACS, or the Hudson Tea Company (a gentle reminder for those who forgot that corporations existed in the 1700’s).
And every amendment thereafter, with one exception*, extends freedoms. It is indeed the slippery slope to deny any person or group the right to pool their resources to exercise their freedom of speech, or to begin defining exactly who gets free speech and who doesn’t. For instance, if a group decides to conduct a rally in front of the federal building and begins to chant, are they now considered to be engaged in something other than individual speech? And who decides?
It’s important to note that during the first round of oral arguments in Citizens United the government legitimately argued that under the campaign finance law, the government has the ability to regulate books. Yes books. We can dislike the swiftboat book, but it was a book none the less.
Another interesting side note is that an immigrant rights group reported they were concerned that a contrary opinion would have hurt their efforts. They publish articles against anti-immigrant local elected officials during the election cycle, and were worried because of the way they are funded that it would be considered electioneering. ( http://www.longislandwins.org )
The hardest part of accepting the freedom of speech is accepting that speech which we hate, including corporate speech.
Abridge speech? Be careful what you ask for.
*Article XVIII, see how that worked out?