[Dryw]

But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations. The human beings are free to do that on their own. They don't need to speak through the corporations.

Corporations are businesses. They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions. They do not require free speech.

[InclinedPlane]

The New York Times is a corporation. Planned Parenthood is a corporation. The NAACP is a corporation. How do you decide which corporations have a right to speak and which don't? You may think it's easy to say, but the reality is that once you give any group the power to muzzle one corporation over others there will inevitably be abuses of that power due to the biases of the people wielding the power.

Better not to give government that power at all. It may leave room for people you don't like to do things you don't like but freedom is messy.

[joubert]

Isn't the Federal Government our (the citizens of the US) representative?

Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Semiapies]

"Isn't the Federal Government our (the citizens of the US) representative?"

And so...?

[joubert]

Well, since the government is the representative of people, then when you say "Better not to give government that power at all", what does that imply?

[InclinedPlane]

It implies that the coercive power of the collective (as materialized in the form of "government") must necessarily be limited in order to preserve individual liberty.

[Semiapies]

I don't know where you're going. What do you mean it implies?

[Semiapies]

You say "But corporations do not speak for the actual human beings in organizations", but then you say, "They are not sentient. They do not have their own opinions".

Both of your claims can't be true.

EDIT: Sorry, down-voters, they can't both be true. Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities.

[mseebach]

The argument is that when corporations speak, they speak with the voice of the owners of that corporation, and that the amplification the corporation provides is somehow unjustified.

Not that this is any different from anything a company does. No matter how much freedom each employee has, they have no freedom to act against the interest of their employer.

[Semiapies]

"The argument is that when corporations speak, they speak with the voice of the owners of that corporation, and that the amplification the corporation provides is somehow unjustified."

I wish people would honestly make that argument instead of resorting to the prior ridiculous rhetoric.

"Not that this is any different from anything a company does."

Or any organization.

[joubert]

You're wrong. A company's management speaks on behalf of the company. And not always in the interest of the shareholders, and definitely never in the interest of all the shareholders.

[Semiapies]

OK, so we have "management" and a "company", but no humans?

[joubert]

You claimed: "Either corporations speak on behalf of actual human beings, or they're sentient financial entities."

Let's take Exxon. http://www.google.com/finance?q=exxon

Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of? Are they all American citizens, for example? Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?

[Semiapies]

"Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of?"

Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of.

"Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?"

Why do you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?

[joubert]

With the indirection that corporate structure creates, the following are some of my concerns:

1) You mention "Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of."

a) 'the people within it' --> a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it. This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes

b) you could argue for the shareholders --> but, the major shareholders are mostly pension funds etc. Membership to these funds is mandated by employers, with little choice by employees (i.e. most voters).

2) And your 2nd comment: "Why do you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?"

The United States Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?

[yummyfajitas]

If the management is not speaking in the interest of the shareholders, they are violating their fiduciary duty and should be fired by the board.

If the board does not fire them, the shareholders can fire the board.

As for the minority shareholders, they agreed that their property (their portion of the company) would be bound by the decision of the majority subject to the restrictions of the corporate charter.

[joubert]

For the majority of the S&P 500, the major shareholders are funds. The people who pay into these funds are employees, who, for practical purposes, don't have a meaningful range of choice or voting power.

[yummyfajitas]

When I signed up for my pension fund, I agreed that money would be spent as directed by the fund managers in a manner consistent with maximizing the size [1] of my investment in 2050.

This was my choice. If I disliked this, I could have made no contribution to the fund, or even quit my job.

[1] I oversimplify. They try to maximize an objective function which penalizes volatility, particularly volatility at the end of the life of the fund.

[mseebach]

What one thinks people "need" or doesn't "need" isn't part of not "abridging the freedom of speech".

[Semiapies]

To more directly address what you say:

"The human beings are free to do that on their own. They don't need to speak through the corporations"

This argument can be made as reasonably for every organization and the very act of political organization, from political parties on down to rallies and petitions.