OK,
@Thales750 -
[Moderator Hat On]
I will first offer the opinion as a moderator that your proposed debate topic IS correctly formed and within guidelines. Please try to keep it from going off the rails.
[Moderator Hat Off]
Now speaking as a member, I rise to support your position.
1. While it has long been the general practice to consider a corporation as a legal person for business contract purposes, the question must focus on what differences exist between a corporate person and a flesh-and-blood person. They clearly are different,
prima facie, and the question must resolve whether a corporate person falls under the umbrella of "We the people."
2. This distinction - being or not being a member of "We the people" - has come up recently in several gun and immigration cases and is pivotal in determining whether specific Constitutional protections apply. The distinction is crucial. The differentiation of these two "legal persons" depends on the difference between corporeal and corporate entities.
3. Corporeal entities - i.e. real people - have certain legal rights and responsibilities. Some of those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some immigration cases suggest that even among corporeal persons, not all of those rights apply. For instance, the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to an illegal immigrant. The distinction of what constitutes "due process of law" is also partly dependent on immigration status. However, among U.S. citizens, the right of freedom of speech is paramount, and is the safeguard that allows elections to retain some modicum of meaning. In the Federalist, the discussions of this right centered around information as the key to the ability of the people to vote intelligently on candidates and issues. These rights do not completely apply to persons who are not among "We the people" because (at least by law) illegal immigrants cannot vote.
4. Corporate entities do not have the right to vote. They cannot keep or bear arms. All of their rights are based on their responsibilities and rights in a commercial or legal framework. See, for example, the criminal liabilities associated with Purdue Pharma and BP Deepwater Horizon cases. It is even possible - though rare - for a corporate dissolution to be ordered - the corporate equivalent of capital punishment. When a corporate executive is determined to have made a particularly heinous decision leading to corporate overreach, that executive (person) can be arrested and tried. It is less common that extreme criminal sanctions are imposed. Less common - but not THAT much less. The biggest difference here is that a corporation cannot actually be imprisoned but its executives can. The "responsible corporate officer" doctrine allows executive punishment for corporate crimes. But the recurring theme is that punishing a corporation is harder that punishing a personal wrong-doer. And when they DO get punished, it involves a monetary penalty - which the corporation passes along to the consumer or shareholder.
5. The corporeal people who make up that corporation DO have and retain full rights if they are citizens. Therefore, removing corporate freedom of speech doesn't restrict the rights of corporeal persons employed by the corporation. In fact, many cases have occurred where a corporate employee cannot campaign for candidates or propositions on corporate grounds, but outside of the job environment has freedom of speech. The employees can certainly still be members of "We the people" - but the corporation cannot be.
6. In essence,
Citizens United vs. F.E.C. allows a corporation to do what its employees cannot do - campaign while at work. However, the work of a corporation - unless it is a recognized campaign corporation registered as such - is not to participate in campaigns. The corporations documents of incorporation are generally required to include statements of purpose. Exceeding that purpose should not be allowed.
7. The methods by which corporations exercise freedom of speech include spending money for advertising. This money comes from the profits of that corporation - which means that in essence, consumers are being surreptitiously forced to pay for political statements they might not consider to be correct. In essence, this violates the freedom of speech of the consumers. When the corporation provides goods or services that are considered irreplaceable, this is the basis of a conflict of interest and the consumer has no recourse to remove the political portion of costs from the amount they must pay for necessary services. Labor unions already have faced this issue and have found ways for the rank-and-file to not pay for messages with which they do not agree. Corporations do not, at this time, have such options.
For these and other reasons, I resolve that
Citizens United should be overturned.
en.wikipedia.org
