[NickC25]

break. up. Amazon.

break up Apple, Meta, MSFT, etc... while we're at it.

Or, keep it simpler - if a company passes a market cap of 1 trillion dollars, they must forgo lobbying and "government relations". if you're worth a trillion dollars or more, you don't need the government to hold your hand.

[kennywinker]

A trillion? Why wouldn’t we set the bar at $0 - companies are not people, and allowing them to influence politics, at any size, corrupts democracy

[NickC25]

I like the way you think. But most wouldn't agree, they believe a company should have the right to influence government.

[kennywinker]

Idk, i think this is incorrect. I think the majority oppose unlimited spending by corporations and individuals. 76% by one poll:

https://issueone.org/press/new-polling-citizens-united-money...

The law and the majority don’t agree way more often than one would expect in a democratic society.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.

[s1artibartfast]

The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition.

Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.

When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.

[kennywinker]

Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated?

Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations.

> Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.

Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advocating for your hobby or interest.

Not to mention the asymmetry. If 20,000 grain farmers want to lobby about wheat by spending $10 each, that’s different from one man spending the same $200,000k on getting a candidate in. Or millions - e.g. elon, etc last election.

[s1artibartfast]

Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op.

That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech.

How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost money. If you like some but not others, is it the content of the messaage you find disagreeable?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The failure to differentiate different categories of corporation is at the heart of the error that is Citizens United.

Sure, most people would agree that the various kinds of corporations formed for the purpose of doing something other than making money should be able to play a political role.

But I do not believe that most people would agree that corporations formed for the explicit and (generally) sole purpose of making money should have this ability.

[twoodfin]

Unfortunately for this project, the First Amendment puts the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” alongside freedoms of speech, the press, and religious exercise.

[NickC25]

Citizens can absolutely do that.

Corporations might be "people" but they aren't citizens. Especially if they participate in shenanigans designed to "minimize" their tax exposure that involve shell corporations in other countries.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

As the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them".

[s1artibartfast]

Almost certianly manufactured by a company that could otherwise be prohiited from printing it. Interesting.

[red-iron-pine]

> Founder, Corporate sellout,

well at least they're not hiding it

[twoodfin]

The Constitution applies to the People of the United States. Not only citizens, and not only people who haven’t formed certain kinds of voluntary associations (another right protected up front!)

[s1artibartfast]

it would be a very different and interesting world if individuals lost their right of free speach if they organize as a group

[NickC25]

This is being disingenuous. Maybe not deliberately so, but still.

There's a difference between a few people getting together and petitioning the government for redress; versus, a multitrillion dollar corporation (that pays little to no tax, and is the recipient of very generous government contracts) buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way.

[s1artibartfast]

I thought we were talking about free speach? If so, I dont think it is off topic at all. People literally advocate that.

In citizens united, the government’s position was that, under their interpretation of the law, the government had the authority to prohibit a corporation or a non-profit organization of any size from publishing a book or pamphlets if they had political implications.

Where would you draw the line? what does "buying its way to the front of the line and whining until it gets its way" mean in practice?

[s1artibartfast]

It isnt just "hand holding", but legitimate information as well. X law will have y consequences. I think people seriously missunderstand what lobbying is.