I’ve realized that I’m for citizens united

The notion, on it’s face, that a corporation deserves civil rights like a person is pretty laughable. Corporations are synthetic people, constructed to free individual people from the liability of entrusting others to act on their behalf or acting on the behalf of others. As a synthetic people it makes sense to give corporations some right; obviously they don’t need the right to have an abortion or the right to medical privacy, but the right to own property? Well yeah they do need that one, in that with out it they cannot function for their intended purpose.

So what about the right to freedom of speech? I think that there are two ways to approach this. One, a weaker (more restrictive) path from a stronger foundation is to examine how freedom of the press plays into the matter. The other, stronger connection from a weaker foundation, is to look at the purpose of corporations and see how this does or does not contribute to those interests.

Starting with freedom of the press, take Rachael Maddow, she can say that she likes or dislikes a candidate or issue, it’s up to her as a member of the press, but what about MSNBC? MSNBC may be a press outlet, but they are also a corporation, do corporations not have rights? Well if MSNBC doesn’t have rights then why do they get to use their resources to spread Rachael Maddow’s agenda? Shouldn’t they be stopped? These PACs have political agendas, but they are also spreading information and opinions, that’s what the press does. If you harken back to the formative years of our constitution the newsprint was full of strong ideas and opinions, it wasn’t until the gilded age that they even bothered to try to look neutral. That freedom of the press was so that people would be able to use press institutions to spread their ideas. PACs aren’t selling information to consumers, they are giving it away, but why does that make it worse? Are PSAs not the press now? If I go to put a public notice in the paper for zoning purposes can I be blocked for doing it for corporate business purposes?

Now looking at the interests of corporations. Because a corporation can be held by several people that corporation can have its own unique synthesis of interests. If I own a portion of a corporation then there can exist an issue or politician that I have an interest by proxy in but have no direct interest in myself. Take for instance a corporation in Delaware owned by a Brit, a Floridian, and a Washingtonian; None of those three owners have direct interests in the outcome of a Delaware election, save for the interests of their corporation. In order to protect themselves from unfair and unreasonable liability the three of them created that synthetic person and along with that synthetic creation came the emergence of real considerations and real needs. Considerations and needs of the same sort that prompted us to create the civil rights for real people in the first place.

It would be nice to keep those with huge amounts of influence in politics already from getting more, but I don’t know that we can do that with out endangering the rights that I hold dear, rights that you should hold dearly too, if you’ve got them.


About opcnup

Emerson White is a biology student working on post grad while doing private research on the side.
This entry was posted in Bit of a Rant, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to I’ve realized that I’m for citizens united

  1. The people that lead the largest corporations have a lot of power whether they use it or not. Even small decisions make huge impacts simply due to the scale of the beast.

    So when you give a corporation the legal right to enter into the political process you’re giving a tiny group of incredibly powerful people more power to shout as loud as they want too and impose their opinions on others. In other words… you’re saying you support a path to more corporate power and a path to fascism.

    You seem like a bright guy Emerson… why do you support increasing corporate power?

    • opcnup says:

      It’s about the principle of the matter. I realize that corporate CEOs and decision makers hae tremendous power and do not need more, but at the same time I don’t recognize any principle which could be used to justify limiting their freedom of speech that would not be equally useful for limiting the freedom of speech of people who do not have that power.

      It’s about protecting speech, not about giving them more power. Them getting more power is a side effect, a negative one, but one I’m willing to bite on in order to protect freedom of speech, because I think that freedom of speech is so very very valuable.

      • In no way does their role as a CEO or other corporate leader limit their freedom of speech… as individual citizens. Their freedom of speech is protected and each of their voices counts as much as yours and mine… as individual citizens.

        But giving the massive machines these control the ability to focus so much capital and power behind political interests gives these people an unfair advantage to pressure the political system toward their advantage. In other words it gives them a much louder voice than you and me… putting all citizens freedom of speech at risk.

        Does that make more sense?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s