Company Decides To Run For Congress
from the brilliant dept
Earlier this week, we jokingly pointed out that with the Supreme Court's ruling on how corporations were people, a company like Google could run for President. Well, it appears that others have the same basic idea. A PR firm in Maryland has announced that it's running for Congress in Maryland's 8th District and has put together a nice campaign ad:Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: companies, congress, free speech, people
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!
The middle-men will never stand for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think?
Most of the $H17 started as a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Congress
If I was President Obama I'd be looking over my shoulder right about now. Hmmm... will Minnie be First Lady I wonder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait...
* Need to be 14-16 years to marry
* Cannot f*** startups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait...
it would also have to be a citizen which corporations to my knowledge do not hold citizenship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait...
Sigh, you know, I don't want to get too pissed off too early today (It's me birthday!), but the fact that our courts have ruled in such a way that your question even makes sense proves how retarded this whole thing has become.
Is too early to start drinking scotch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Neilds put something similar in their last newsletter. I couldn't tell if it was meant as a joke or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ha ha i love the onion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ha ha i love the onion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are registered at The Limited
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
The middle-men will never stand for it."
Exactly. The Lobbyists would end up suing to PREVENT this, since it would make them obsolete. Just like the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yep
I think he meant the middle-men were the politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My District
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A boon for loyal customerz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ignorance of constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ignorance of constitution
SCOTUS has already done that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yuck, yuck, yuck: the trouble is only Stevens' dissent refered to the theory that corporations are persons
The problem is that the majority opinion repeatedly referred to "corporations or other associations" and no where referred to the legal theory that corporations are legal persons.
The only reason the ruling is obnoxious is that the management of corporations has stopped working for their shareholders and started working for themselves (oh, for a generation of Jay Goulds, "The public be d*mned, I work for my shareholders"!), and without some reform, it would be the management of corporations using their shareholders' resources (remember corporations belong to their shareholders, folks saving for pensions, and so forth) to engage in political speech.
I suggest that Campaign Finance Reform v 2.0, besides requiring a heavy dose of transparency, require that expenditures by corporations or unions that either 1) explicitly or implicitly endorse or oppose a candidate running for public office or 2) engage in advocacy on an issue in contention during any election campaign be approved in terms of their purpose, their amount, and the venues of publication by a majority vote of the shareholders or members.
The majority opinion vindicates the free speech rights of corporations and unions as associations, meaning derivative from the rights of those associated, meaning the shareholders and members, not corporate managers or union bosses, who are, in the eyes of the law, fiduciaries for the shareholders or members, even if they all think of themselves as bosses and de facto owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welp......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]