Company Decides To Run For Congress

from the brilliant dept

Thu, Feb 4th 2010 2:45pm — Mike Masnick

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

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:16pm

YES!
Cut out the middle-man. No need for actual people running for office when we can just have the corporations run it directly instead of having to pay lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xyro TR1 (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:27pm

Well
I'll be waiting for all the record companies to jump at this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:57pm

Re: Well
That's not how they operate. They'd just find some gullible pretty-faced "artist" to play puppeteer with and run him/her instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 2:59pm

Re: YES!
Well, I suppose that WOULD make the system more efficient....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:17pm

Oh thank god that's a joke...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:17pm

Corporate Congress
I would have thought Disney would have been the first to run... no wait, Disney wouldn't bother with 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 thread ]
JonMontgo (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:38pm

You know what...
...this is a great idea. Really though, I hope that this company actually wins the race. Think about it. A corporation wins the election and cites the Supreme Courts decision as the reason that it should be allowed to take office. The Supreme Court will rush to change their decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:42pm

Hey wait...
Regarding Google... wouldn't a corporation have to be 35 years old to run for president?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Al, 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:43pm

Re: Re: Well
It's a pity Sonny Bono's dead...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zegota (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:46pm

Wrong
If you stopped Google from running, you'd be squashing its free speech rights. 34-year-old companies have a right to espousing their opinion by running for president too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
reboog711 (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:48pm

At least with a company, Biases are a bit more up front.

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 thread ]
chris (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:48pm

ha ha i love the onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:55pm

Re: Wrong
wha?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zegota (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 3:59pm

Re: Re: Wrong
Don't pretend like you're confused, that infringes on my right to free speech!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 4:01pm

We are registered at The Limited
I am proposing to my girlfriend's LLC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 4:08pm

Re: Hey wait...
Also:
* Need to be 14-16 years to marry
* Cannot f*** startups
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 4:23pm

Re: YES!
Cut out the middle-man.

The middle-men will never stand for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 4:24pm

Re: Hey wait...
very good point.
it would also have to be a citizen which corporations to my knowledge do not hold citizenship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 4 Feb 2010 @ 4:53pm

Oh that's nice. When this does become a reality, it'll be nice to see the news when entire corporations are taken into custody for alleged rapes and extortion of other innocent companies. Perhaps they'll take retreats out into the mountains to clear their heads as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 4 Feb 2010 @ 5:05pm

yep
"Cut out the middle-man.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 5:11pm

If a company is a person, then does that mean that you can not legally enter into a contract with the company until it turned 18? Does it have to get the parent company to sign for it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zaven (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 5:21pm

My District
Hey, that's my district. Too bad I'm a registered Republican (Actually independent but I wanted to be able to vote in primaries).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OMG, 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:05pm

A boon for loyal customerz
Just bring in your voting receipt showing your vote for XYZ corp ansd get a 10% dicount on select items!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:09pm

Re:
For Now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:19pm

The more I think about, this seems like one of those things that we laugh about now, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 6:27pm

If a corporation is a person, then isn't owning a corporation akin to slavery?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 8:00pm

Re: ha ha i love the onion
Why is it when I read The Onion it feels like I'm reading the news of the future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2010 @ 9:08pm

Re: yep
Exactly. The Lobbyists would end up suing to PREVENT this, since it would make them obsolete. Just like the RIAA.

I think he meant the middle-men were the politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anti-mike fanclub member #1, 5 Feb 2010 @ 12:48am

Re: You know what...
Zounds, you are a greater legal mind than all 7 supreme court justices combined! No chance they can come up with a stunning save at the last second which blocks this while preserving the last opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dsf, 5 Feb 2010 @ 1:57am

ignorance of constitution
Ha Ha guys, but you're doing a disservice. The constitution clearly uses the term "person" when discussing the qualifications for congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2010 @ 5:19am

Re: ignorance of constitution
"Ha Ha guys, but you're doing a disservice."

SCOTUS has already done that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DNY (profile), 5 Feb 2010 @ 6:19am

yuck, yuck, yuck: the trouble is only Stevens' dissent refered to the theory that corporations are persons
Very funny.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Feb 2010 @ 6:49am

Re: Hey wait...
"Regarding Google... wouldn't a corporation have to be 35 years old to run for president?"

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 thread ]
TSO, 5 Feb 2010 @ 11:33am

Re:
> Oh thank god that's a joke...

You think?

Most of the $H17 started as a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the best toe on ur feet, 6 Feb 2010 @ 12:24am

Welp......
I guess I better get started making my corporation if I want it to run or Pres. And what are you fools waiting on? The first corp to be elected wins the USSA!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 6 Feb 2010 @ 2:04pm

Thought corporations already RAN congress... but don't the 'candidates' have to be a citizen? Wouldn't that disqualify a 'corporation'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mhenriday (profile), 7 Feb 2010 @ 8:30am

The video
says everything that needs to be said about the state of the political system in the United States - and in only !:14 !... Henri
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Caleb Groves, 10 Feb 2010 @ 10:06am

the video
So many of you don't understand...the requirements to run for Congress or President only matter to the human who signs the legal papers and such. If you actually went to their website and read it, you will find that Murray Hill Inc. is not going to be on the ballot -- the person they are using to represent them is. So it doesn't matter is the company is 3 months old, as long as the person that is going to be doing the voting and legislation is 35 years old, it's legal. All that this means is that the corporation is able to finance a campaign, so they use a person who will vote based on what the company tells him to vote. Get it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Horizon Treadmill, 17 Dec 2010 @ 11:54pm

Re: You know what...
Yeah very well said. Great idea, keep it up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]