XOM makes more in profit EVERY DAY than most families will earn over the course of ten generations. They now have unlimited influence. Have a nice day.
Well, I get the frustration, but I have to say that of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the First one has a special place in my heart. Surely you can admit, in your heart of hearts, that putting restrictions on political speech might be contrary to the spirit on that one-- that there's a real issue there, not an obvious solution?
Agreed that restrictions on political speech are antithetical to the purpose of the First Amendment.
What I don't agree with is that the First Amendment has any application to fictional entities that exist solely to make a profit, as opposed to individuals who have an unlimited range of legally-permissible interests and collections of individuals formed for associational, rather than profitmaking, purposes. XOM has precisely one goal: profit-maximization. If it takes any actions that are not directed at that goal, its directors are potentially liable to shareholders.[1]
I don't see that speech in support of such a motive is what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Alas for your argument, the First Amendment is not a list of what anyone or anything can do. It is a list of what the government cannot do. Among the things the government cannot do is make laws restricting the freedom of speech. Not the speech of individuals, but speech, from any source with any motive.
Since the First Amendment was intended to curb government power, I would have to place that type of political speech within its intents. Motive doesn't enter into it. Motive shouldn't enter into it, because once it does I have no guarantee that the government-- whoever it happens to be that year-- won't decide that my motives aren't pure enough.
As a practical matter, your argument ignores the existence of non-profit corporations. It also ignores news and broadcasting corporations which manage to publish editorials and political commentary all the time. And it ignores other forms of associations which find themselves limited in purpose, such as labor unions.
Government CREATES corporations, and it is Government that requires management to maximize profits on penalty of liability. Therefore, Government can condition that creation as it sees fit, including by restrictions on corporate speech that would be impermissible if applied to individuals. Freedom of Speech isn't implicated, because corporations are creatures of, not parties to, the social contract.
Non-profits: By the same token, government can constitutionally limit the speech of non-profits. However, I think that the protections of Freedom of Association and Freedom to Petition (but not Freedom of Speech) should limit their ability to do so with respect to non-profit corporations formed FOR THE PURPOSE of political speech (the ACLU, Sierra Club and NRA, for instance).
Thus shareholders' speech rights remain unfettered--if they want to spend their money to support the corporation, they can organize a PAC for the purpose; but the corporation cannot fund it directly out of its own coffers.
Labor unions are the same as corporations for this purpose. They are organized to maximize the bargaining power of their membership vis-a-vis their employers, not for political speech.
As for news and broadcasting corporations, there you have the fourth prong of the First Amendment, Freedom of the Press. This is inherently a fuzzier line, as it is certainly conceivable that the corporate owner of a newspaper would direct coverage to be slanted in a way that favors its corporate interests. But it is a line that is well within the capacity of the courts to police. Alternatively, a solution would be to return to the traditional rule: limited-purpose corporations, such that a manufacturing company cannot own a media company; or better-still, limitations on media ownership so that a corporate-controlled newspaper faces sufficient competition from papers that are not so controlled or are controlled by corporations with other interests.
After this, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
But as a matter of law, the First Amendment doesn't contain a clause saying, "except for its own creations." It simply says that the government may not make a law restricting speech, which is exactly what that law was. You're still trying to make a distinction between affected and non-affected entities, where the Constitution makes no such distinction. The First Amendment limits the government, and prevents the government from imposing other limitations.... period.
(You then compound this by making distinctions based not only on type of entity, but also on purpose of entity-- non-profit vs for-profit corporation. This is exactly the kind of slippery slope the First Amendment is supposed to avoid.)
Finally, consider the places that this sort of ability might lead: Can Congress pass laws preventing all corporate entities from publicly criticizing the government? By your theory, yes, of course, since the government "creates" the organizations. That's a mild example of the abuses that inhere in such a philosophy, and I already find the idea repellent.
I find it interesting how you keep managing to respond with something that I'd addressed and then deleted as non-responsive to your prior comment (here, the suggestion that the meaning of the First Amendment is clear-cut and obvious, which if true would mean that laws prohibiting libel, slander and copyright infringement are all unconstitutional).
If the meaning of the First Amendment does not require interpretation, however, then there is no issue here, as Congress did not regulate speech but only the spending of money, which is nowhere mentioned in the First Amendment. That, of course, leads to much more problematic places than your hypothetical.
Yes, Congress can pass laws prohibiting corporate entities from criticizing the government. So what? Individuals retain the right to do so, including individuals whose interests are aligned with the corporation's.
(Your parenthetical manages to misstate my argument and assume your conclusion simultaneously. The right protected is that of individuals to assemble together to more effectively promote their individual political opinions.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
What I don't agree with is that the First Amendment has any application to fictional entities that exist solely to make a profit, as opposed to individuals who have an unlimited range of legally-permissible interests and collections of individuals formed for associational, rather than profitmaking, purposes. XOM has precisely one goal: profit-maximization. If it takes any actions that are not directed at that goal, its directors are potentially liable to shareholders.[1]
I don't see that speech in support of such a motive is what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
[1] Although this is very difficult to establish.
From:
no subject
Since the First Amendment was intended to curb government power, I would have to place that type of political speech within its intents. Motive doesn't enter into it. Motive shouldn't enter into it, because once it does I have no guarantee that the government-- whoever it happens to be that year-- won't decide that my motives aren't pure enough.
As a practical matter, your argument ignores the existence of non-profit corporations. It also ignores news and broadcasting corporations which manage to publish editorials and political commentary all the time. And it ignores other forms of associations which find themselves limited in purpose, such as labor unions.
From:
no subject
Non-profits: By the same token, government can constitutionally limit the speech of non-profits. However, I think that the protections of Freedom of Association and Freedom to Petition (but not Freedom of Speech) should limit their ability to do so with respect to non-profit corporations formed FOR THE PURPOSE of political speech (the ACLU, Sierra Club and NRA, for instance).
Thus shareholders' speech rights remain unfettered--if they want to spend their money to support the corporation, they can organize a PAC for the purpose; but the corporation cannot fund it directly out of its own coffers.
Labor unions are the same as corporations for this purpose. They are organized to maximize the bargaining power of their membership vis-a-vis their employers, not for political speech.
As for news and broadcasting corporations, there you have the fourth prong of the First Amendment, Freedom of the Press. This is inherently a fuzzier line, as it is certainly conceivable that the corporate owner of a newspaper would direct coverage to be slanted in a way that favors its corporate interests. But it is a line that is well within the capacity of the courts to police.
Alternatively, a solution would be to return to the traditional rule: limited-purpose corporations, such that a manufacturing company cannot own a media company; or better-still, limitations on media ownership so that a corporate-controlled newspaper faces sufficient competition from papers that are not so controlled or are controlled by corporations with other interests.
From:
no subject
But as a matter of law, the First Amendment doesn't contain a clause saying, "except for its own creations." It simply says that the government may not make a law restricting speech, which is exactly what that law was. You're still trying to make a distinction between affected and non-affected entities, where the Constitution makes no such distinction. The First Amendment limits the government, and prevents the government from imposing other limitations.... period.
(You then compound this by making distinctions based not only on type of entity, but also on purpose of entity-- non-profit vs for-profit corporation. This is exactly the kind of slippery slope the First Amendment is supposed to avoid.)
Finally, consider the places that this sort of ability might lead: Can Congress pass laws preventing all corporate entities from publicly criticizing the government? By your theory, yes, of course, since the government "creates" the organizations. That's a mild example of the abuses that inhere in such a philosophy, and I already find the idea repellent.
From:
no subject
If the meaning of the First Amendment does not require interpretation, however, then there is no issue here, as Congress did not regulate speech but only the spending of money, which is nowhere mentioned in the First Amendment. That, of course, leads to much more problematic places than your hypothetical.
Yes, Congress can pass laws prohibiting corporate entities from criticizing the government. So what? Individuals retain the right to do so, including individuals whose interests are aligned with the corporation's.
(Your parenthetical manages to misstate my argument and assume your conclusion simultaneously. The right protected is that of individuals to assemble together to more effectively promote their individual political opinions.)