[pwdisswordfish2]

"If this body is concerned with what we are doing with the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people;"

"however, this body should also note that Amazon will seek to exert control over the legislative process to ensure that Amazon's best interests are represented to the maximum extent that our influence and lobbying budget will allow,^1 even if those interests conflict with the best interests of this country and its people."

1. We spent $16,790,000 in 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... I own the Washington Post. I am considered by Forbes, among others, to be the world's wealthiest billionaire. I am also a registered voter in this country.

[nostromo]

Petitioning the Government (aka lobbying) is a civil right in the US, guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution.

[ardy42]

> Petitioning the Government (aka lobbying) is a civil right in the US, guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution.

And some people are obviously more equal then others when exercising that right.

[willis936]

The constitution applies to citizens, not organizations.

Anti-trust laws exist to protect citizens from organizations that try to break these rules. Amazon is teeing up.

[otterley]

Attorney here!*

The relevant part of the First Amendment states (emphasis mine):

"...OR the right of the people peaceably to assemble, AND to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is preceded by a semicolon, making this clause a compound clause. The right to petition the Government is conferred both on individuals and on assemblies (organizations), and has been since the nation was founded. And this principle has been taken as gospel in law as interpreted by our Courts since the nation's founding.

(*IAAL but this is not legal advice. Seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.)

[baix777]

But the type of organization that is a corporation didn't exist when the constitution was written. Much like nuclear arms (and chemical, and biological) didn't exist when the constitution was written so we don't consider them covered by the second amendment.

[JackFr]

It certainly did. Among others, the Virginia Company, the Plymouth Company, the British East India Company all featured tradeable shares, perpetual lifetime, limited liability and legal personhood.

What makes the modern economy so different is the democraticization of incorporation. Prior to the 19th century it took a specific legislative act to incorporate.

[supernova87a]

Maybe that's something we need to bring back -- limits on how many and how large corporations can be? Before they take over running all of society?

Right now you can create infinite corporations, with little to no traceability as to who's really responsible. Maybe there should be some limits?

[Anon1096]

We don't consider nuclear warheads to be covered under the second amendment because they are munitions, not arms. What you're saying is a little ridiculous - do you expect that something written on the Internet is not covered by the first amendment, simply because it didn't exist at the time the amendment was written? Of course not. Technological progress is easily covered by the Constitution.

[bzbarsky]

The English East India Company was set up along lines pretty similar to today's corporations, and that happened almost 200 years before the constitution was written (1600, to be precise). By 1720 you definitely have bubbles involving corporate stocks (see South Sea Bubble).

By the time you get to the late 18th century (i.e. about when the Constitution was written) you have publications with titles like "A Treatise on the Law of Corporations"; just keep reading the Wikipedia entry above. That was published 7 years after the US Constitution was ratified, but of course the laws and corporations it was talking abot had been around for _quite_ a while at that point.

[triceratops]

Joint stock corporations predate the US constitution.

[kortilla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

[dragonwriter]

> The constitution applies to citizens

No, the Constitution applies to government.

But it generally protects people, (not just citizens) which in law included juridical as well as natural persons long before the Constitution.

[supernova87a]

What happens when corporations have more practical daily influence over people's lives than the government? This is a problem. Is it our Achilles heel?

[missedthecue]

I see that as a good thing. Macy's can't force me to do anything. The federal government can. I'd prefer Macy's to have more influence in my day to day life than the business end of a gun.

[dragonwriter]

“Corporations” and “business end of a gun” are not mutually exclusive mechanisms of power.

[dragonwriter]

> What happens when corporations have more practical daily influence over people's lives than the government?

Impossible, because while corporations are a vehicle through which private individuals act, they are a creation and extension of government power. While the power exerted through corporations is not proximately controlled by people who are particularly accountable to the public for their actions, it is nevertheless government power, and thus the power exerted by corporations can never be greater than that exerted by government, because the former is a subset of the latter.

[supernova87a]

You don't think that a corporation, even now, can exceed the ability of its employees to disagree with what it's doing?

Like lobby for legislation that protects (or makes paramount) the corporate interests, even though the people within the corporation might completely object to what is being lobbied for?

I think we underestimate how much people are willing to do what their employer requires to continue to be employed, and end up doing things that are totally legal, but not desireable in the long run.

[sb8244]

The Supreme Court has determined that companies are granted some rights as citizens have. The first is one of the rights that is protected according to their rulings.

[willis936]

And it is widely believed to be a failure of the justice system. Companies are not expected to behave the same as individuals. They have different motivations and calculate risks differently. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it isn’t a duck.

[sb8244]

You can't say that the first amendment doesn't apply to companies when the law has found that it does. You can say that you believe it shouldn't, but legally today it does.

[dlp211]

The issue is that the first amendment isn't absolute, there are in fact limits, those limits however have been effectively rescinded when it comes to corporations but are still in place for individuals. The disparity of power this affords in our democracy is destined to erode what is left of it.

[ac29]

That's a reasonably fair criticism, but Congress has the power to outlaw such lobbying.

[otterley]

Congress has some power to outlaw corruption (or the perception thereof), but not lobbying per se. Restrictions on donations to political campaigns have been upheld in the past, but those tend to be direct money donations to candidates.

Handing over money directly to a candidate is one thing, but the Courts have been a little more hesitant to uphold restrictions on lobbying or political speech -- and the spending of money to do it -- if it's being spent by or given to a third party not directly connected to the Government. The hesitancy is most recently exemplified in the Citizen's United case that is of significant controversy.

[supernova87a]

Sometimes I think that Congress had better think ahead to save its own skin, propose amendments to the Constitution about limits on corporations, before they lose all power to them and can no longer escape their grasp.

[AlchemistCamp]

It's principal-agent problems all the way down.

[supernova87a]

What does it matter that Amazon in particular is the one buying out these politicians? Someone would do it. They're a big enough company that the left hand probably doesn't know what the right hand is doing anyway.

And the most evil company in the world telling you to regulate it ought to give you some pause that maybe you really should think about doing that, don't you think?

[ericd]

How do you figure that Amazon is the most evil company in the world? Like, more than companies whose main products literally kill the users (Altria/Phillip Morris)? The companies that develop ICBMs? Or energy companies that create false narratives to confuse the conversation around climate change? Which frankly has a non-zero chance of being the cause of a new dark age.

Am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?

[supernova87a]

I'm just using that word as hyperbole. If the person above thinks that Amazon is so bad for lobbying congresspeople, wouldn't Amazon itself saying it needs to be regulated deserve some serious consideration?

[ericd]

Gotcha, mea culpa. Sometimes it seems like the internet really does think that unironically.

Yeah, I think it deserves some thought.

[spectramax]

I would argue that ICBMs are a peaceful weapon. Look up nuclear deterrence.

[LatteLazy]

It's almost as if Congress should change some laws about campaign spending and individuals owning loss making "news" organisations. But they don't...