Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Electoral Innovation
January 28, 2010 4:18 PM   Subscribe

Murray Hill Inc. for Congress in MD.
posted by pwedza (41 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
designated human spokesman

heh
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:24 PM on January 28, 2010


Murray Hill Inc. - Who, What, Where, When and Why:
Founded in 2005, Murray Hill Inc. is a progressive firm that works hard and smart to make sure our clients get the support they need. Murray Hill partners share the same values with our clients. Our goal is to work on meaningful, creative and challenging campaigns that will also let us get a good night's sleep.
How very vague. But apparently they've registered their domain since 2007, and The Wayback Machine knew them in 2008, so it's not just a sham company created to create controversy.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:35 PM on January 28, 2010


No, it's a real company created to create controversy.
posted by Balisong at 4:37 PM on January 28, 2010


The war being waged by silicon based lifeforms on carbon based lifeforms is only just beginning.
posted by Burhanistan at 4:39 PM on January 28, 2010


If it's only been around since '05, it's not old enough to vote, let alone run for Congress.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 4:44 PM on January 28, 2010 [5 favorites]


That's a damn good point McdII:JO
posted by Balisong at 4:46 PM on January 28, 2010


I don't know anything about this corporation or what they stand for. But if Trader Joe's decides to run on a platform of free Gingerbread Coffee and Prig Khing Green Beans for everyone, I'm manning the phonebank.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:49 PM on January 28, 2010


Microsoft is running for Darth Vader, which I didn't realize was an elected position until just recently.
posted by Mister_A at 4:58 PM on January 28, 2010 [1 favorite]


Looking forward to seeing Murray Hill Inc. on C-SPAN!
posted by grounded at 4:58 PM on January 28, 2010


I don't know anything about this corporation or what they stand for. But if Trader Joe's decides to run on a platform of free Gingerbread Coffee and Prig Khing Green Beans for everyone, I'm manning the phonebank.

All they ask of you is that you bring your own bags when shopping, relax your dress code a little with Hawaiian print shirts, and eternal obedience unto Joe.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:02 PM on January 28, 2010


Corporations are real enough to have rights such as free speech, why not?

if you need me I'll be in Finland
posted by DU at 5:02 PM on January 28, 2010


I would vote for Google for President in a heartbeat.
posted by billysumday at 5:17 PM on January 28, 2010 [3 favorites]


You guys would all go with the Apple/VW ticket. By "you guys" I mean anyone who is reading this.
posted by Mister_A at 5:21 PM on January 28, 2010 [3 favorites]


In the interview video, the "designated human" says that they're arguing that a corporation's age is the age of the statute under which it was incorporated. I think it makes more sense to say that the age of a corporation is the average age of its owners, adjusted for the percentage each owner has.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:22 PM on January 28, 2010


I want to be the sexy intern on the Apple/VW ticket.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:23 PM on January 28, 2010


Yeah the campaign would crash and burn when they found you in bed with a Touareg and an iPad.
posted by Mister_A at 5:28 PM on January 28, 2010


Running as a Republican? Pfffffft. Forget it. I'm voting for Tommy Chong's bong company.
posted by Flunkie at 5:34 PM on January 28, 2010


So someone explain why this is actually not legal...
posted by Lord_Pall at 5:41 PM on January 28, 2010


I fear the Monsanto/Lockheed Martin ticket almost as much as the Halliburton/XE ticket.
posted by Balisong at 5:45 PM on January 28, 2010


So someone explain why this is actually not legal...
Ignoring common sense (since the Supreme Court did):

Representatives have to be at least 25 years old. The corporation's argument that it is as old as the statute under which it is incorporated, rather than as old as the time that has passed since its incorporation, strikes me as ludicrous.
posted by Flunkie at 5:46 PM on January 28, 2010


That's a damn good point McdII:JOCARRIER LOST
posted by davejay at 6:08 PM on January 28, 2010


Well, that settles it; I'm incorporating my family, and incorporating my children. It's the only rational thing to do.
posted by davejay at 6:09 PM on January 28, 2010


I'd say they corporate age should be derived however the freedom of speech was derived, but the minimum age of the stockholders definitely applies, and a private company can easily meet that requirement. Apple is definitely not a good corporate citizen, btw.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:11 PM on January 28, 2010


For a brief moment, I thought this post was going to be about this Murray Hill.

Never mind.
posted by sueinnyc at 6:34 PM on January 28, 2010


Representatives have to be at least 25 years old. The corporation's argument that it is as old as the statute under which it is incorporated, rather than as old as the time that has passed since its incorporation, strikes me as ludicrous.

However, if as in the case of a corporation like Murray Hill the corporation is under the age of 18, the court has always limited the rights of minors recognizing that they aren't fully mature adults.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:12 PM on January 28, 2010


An Apple/VW Ticket would never fly for president/vp. VW is clearly not a natural-born citizen.
posted by sleeping bear at 7:13 PM on January 28, 2010 [2 favorites]


Yeah the campaign would crash and burn when they found you in bed with a Touareg and an iPad.

You are forgetting this is post-racial America, I don't think anyone cares if you are in bed with a Berber nomadic pastoralist from North Africa and an AppleTM product.... particularly if the Berber in question is sporting a jaunty cigarette holder.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:17 PM on January 28, 2010


Hey guys, how many shares of Intel do I have to buy to marry it? Legally speaking, it is a person, and not another dude, so I should be able to marry it, even if NJ just voted down gay marriage.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:20 PM on January 28, 2010


This would have been so much better without the early-twenties-something-tech-hipster-sounding voice. I like what they're up to and I like the point they're making, but they need to find a retired radio or TV or movie trailer announcer to read their scripts with a deep, serious-sounding voice.
posted by treepour at 8:44 PM on January 28, 2010


The only compelling reason I've seen so far why this is illegal is the corporation isn't old enough. I'll be in my bunker, whimpering quietly.
posted by potch at 8:48 PM on January 28, 2010 [2 favorites]


Trader Joe's is old enough to run for President (parent company started by Joe Coloumbe, an individual, as Pronto Markets in 1958, with the first TJs opened in 1967, obviously incorporated then or earlier).

Maybe in 2012, Obama can drop Biden in favor of a Better Joe.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:10 PM on January 28, 2010


Hey guys, how many shares of Intel do I have to buy to marry it? Legally speaking, it is a person, and not another dude, so I should be able to marry it, even if NJ just voted down gay marriage.

Yeah, uh, all corporations are pretty obviously dudes. They're almost all run by dudes, they employ mainly dudes, and they pay dudes more.
posted by graventy at 9:22 PM on January 28, 2010


Call Murray Hill 5-9099 if you Love Lucy.
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:13 AM on January 29, 2010


25 years from now, you're going to run across this thread in some archive and be amazed at just how prescient those MetaFilter nuts actually were.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:26 AM on January 29, 2010


I think a corporation violates every clause in that line:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
By contrast, note that the first amendment does not refer to people when talking about free speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
posted by smackfu at 5:43 AM on January 29, 2010


By contrast, note that the first amendment does not refer to people when talking about free speech

I think back in the founding father's day, it was just sort of taken as a common sense given that when you talk about "speech" you're talking about something people do, as we had not yet at that point in our history discovered that bushes, trees, lizards, cars and even horses can deliver stirring oratory when circumstances demand it.

Why, just the other day, my living room floor lamp just out of the blue started holding forth with this rousing Jeremiad against the excesses of post-industrial consumerism in the West. I swear, I almost hopped up from the sofa and pitched my iPod into the garbage disposal on the spot, but then, my iPod is a silver-tongued devil, too, and it skillful rhetoric soon won me back over.

Damn, life has just been so damn confusing since the Court extended free speech protections to non-people! As if parrots with talk shows wasn't confusing enough.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:34 AM on January 29, 2010 [2 favorites]


heh! founding father's day. yeah, really, there was just one. his name was bob.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:35 AM on January 29, 2010


An Apple/VW Ticket would never fly for president/vp. VW is clearly not a natural-born citizen.

The Supreme Court already established that foreign corporations may get involved in the US electoral process, so long as they bring lots of 20s and 100s to the table. Low denominations are preferable.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:49 AM on January 29, 2010


25 years from now, you're going to run across this thread in some archive and be amazed at just how prescient those MetaFilter nuts actually were.


It's a self-link, but let it be known that Slick Lily vs. The Grand Canyon (2001) got there first.
posted by vibrotronica at 8:24 AM on January 29, 2010


smackfu wrote: "By contrast, note that the first amendment does not refer to people when talking about free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"

Yet it does when mentioning peaceable assembly (and by extension, petitioning for redress). I think your construction makes little sense. Not that that stopped the Supreme Court.
posted by wierdo at 10:07 AM on January 29, 2010


Hey guys, how many shares of Intel do I have to buy to marry it? Legally speaking, it is a person, and not another dude

Don't most of the anti-gay-marriage laws work by specifying "a man and a woman"? Intel is neither another dude nor a dudette, and therefore cannot take part in marriage in those states.

Also, buying shares in someone and then marrying it? That's some kinda creepy possessive relationship shit there.
posted by hattifattener at 1:00 AM on January 30, 2010


« Older Flickr: Looking into the Past...  |  Dr Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lan... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments