"We bought it; we paid for it; and we're going to keep it." Vote Murray Hill, Inc. for Congress

March 16, 2010 3:08 PM

Following the Citizens United campaign finance/free speech ruling from the Supreme Court, it was inevitable. If corporate entities have free speech rights, why limit Congress to only corporeal Americans? Corporate America always likes to cut out the middleman. In that vein, Maryland public relations firm Murray Hill, Inc., wants to be Murray Hill, Inc. (R-Md). Franchises are available nationwide. "Until now, corporations only influenced politics with high-paid lobbyists and backroom deals. But today, thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. It was their dream to build the best democracy money can buy." The candidate's "designated human" recently gave an interview laying out the candidate's views.
posted by webhund (60 comments total)

Dumb. Inevitable and dumb.
posted by The World Famous at 3:10 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Please, please, please let there be an implicit HAMBURGER.

Everywhere.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:12 PM on March 16, 2010

In a marketplace of idea(l)s, anything is for sale.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:17 PM on March 16, 2010

Senator Barbara Mikulski would pick Murry Hill apart with the speed and finesse of a Marylander at a crab feast.
posted by sallybrown at 3:18 PM on March 16, 2010

Interesting question. On what grounds is Murray Hill, Inc. not qualified?
posted by effugas at 3:23 PM on March 16, 2010

It may be a stunt now, but in the not-so-distant future it will be The Way Things Are. Why bother to give away money to candidates who may or may not vote your way, when you can buy the seat outright?
posted by briank at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

I understand the impulse, and all, but I really wish they weren't doing this. This allows conservatives and conservative justices to strike this down and look measured in their positions. They can then pretend to be retaining some centrist, moderate position by allowing companies to spend freely on elections.

"See? We're not advocating a radical reinvention of what it means to have Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights! We think corporations ought to be able to spend as much money as possible on buying and selling elections, but we draw the line at them actually running for office. We are a centrist, common-sense group, after all."

Bla, bla, Overton Window, and all.
posted by darkstar at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

I hope you just forgot to add the link to The Onion.
posted by DoublePlus at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2010

Why does America keep taking steps towards dystopia?
posted by knapah at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

For completeness, previously.
posted by persona at 3:26 PM on March 16, 2010

effugas: Interesting question. On what grounds is Murray Hill, Inc. not qualified?

One objection appears to be that Murray Hill, Inc., is only 5 years old; Constitution says you have to be at least 25 to be a Representative.
posted by webhund at 3:27 PM on March 16, 2010 [12 favorites]

Everyone knows a 5-year-old corporation is actually 35 in human years.
posted by brain_drain at 3:29 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

Why does America keep taking steps towards dystopia?

Because it is dominated politically by two groups:

1. Idiots.
2. Other idiots who disagree with group number 1, even if they don't understand what it is they're disagreeing with.
posted by The World Famous at 3:29 PM on March 16, 2010 [8 favorites]

So is that the answer then? Pick up old companies that are about to go under, buy them, use them to run for office? I'm in. Let's buy something old and cheap and run as Mefites Inc. (I).
posted by schyler523 at 3:31 PM on March 16, 2010

One objection appears to be that Murray Hill, Inc., is only 5 years old; Constitution says you have to be at least 25 to be a Representative.

You also have to have been a U.S. citizen for at least 7 years.

Oh, and also, you have to be a natural person. So there's that.
posted by The World Famous at 3:31 PM on March 16, 2010 [5 favorites]

"On what grounds is Murray Hill, Inc. not qualified?"
How can an entity be a US citizen if that entity is not a citizen at all?
posted by Kaigiron at 3:32 PM on March 16, 2010

Dumb. Inevitable and dumb

I love it. Regardless of the legal aspects of it, it totally points out the problem with Citizens United, which is fucked.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:34 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Constitution could take a weighted average of ages of all the executives. Then all that collected wisdom and strength can be squeezed into the programming of our new FoundingFathers™-brand voting machines.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:35 PM on March 16, 2010

"See? We're not advocating a radical reinvention of what it means to have Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights! We think corporations ought to be able to spend as much money as possible on buying and selling elections, but we draw the line at them actually running for office. We are a centrist, common-sense group, after all."

Really? This would be percieved as a centrist position? No, it would not. It would be precisely these stupid arguments that would highlight the stupidity of their position.

I'm aiming for a constitutional amendment to ban this practice. Bet it flies through.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:36 PM on March 16, 2010

Oh, and also, you have to be a natural person.

It's a little late for putting legal restrictions on what natural people are, don't you think?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:37 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

"On what grounds is Murray Hill, Inc. not qualified?"
How can an entity be a US citizen if that entity is not a citizen at all?

Because the Founders meant natural persons when they drafted those requirements. The corporation was a much different thing back then. I'm not sure if the legal fiction of corporate personhood had been invented back then.

The problem isn't with that fiction--you can't have the world we know without it. The problem is Citizens United.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:38 PM on March 16, 2010

Where exactly is the line, really? If corporations are legally people, why can't they be imprisoned/get married/vote/run for office/be drafted/face capital punishment? If they can't do these things, why do they get free speech?
posted by mullingitover at 3:39 PM on March 16, 2010

How can an entity be a US citizen if that entity is not a citizen at all?

Citizenship is a quaint notion and no longer a requirement, now that foreign companies can speak in our political process. .
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:39 PM on March 16, 2010

Ironmouth, I wasn't being dense, I was pointing out that a corporation isn't a citizen, so it can't run for President. I think this ploy is amusing, and it's disgusting that the Supreme Court has granted some rights of citizens to corporations, but it seems clear that they don't actually qualify to run for office.
posted by Kaigiron at 3:43 PM on March 16, 2010

Why does America keep taking steps towards dystopia?

Because folks started thinking Behold a Pale Horse would be an awesome way to run government? We've already got no Habeas Corpus, computerized at-will phone tapping, FEMA relocation antics and election "discrepancies".

All I know is that when they finally detonate the nuke to turn Jupiter into a second sun to stave off the new ice age, it will be awesome.
posted by yeloson at 3:45 PM on March 16, 2010

I^TM love this idea!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:47 PM on March 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

Vote Ficus!
posted by gurple at 3:53 PM on March 16, 2010

It's a little late for putting legal restrictions on what natural people are, don't you think?

I'm not proposing any new restriction on what a natural person is.

While I have yet to read the entire opinion, it is my current understanding that Citizens United did not hold that corporations are natural persons. Indeed, there is explicit discussion in the opinion recognizing the Court's consistent holdings that corporations are not natural persons, and disagreement among the Justices as to the question of whether corporations should have rights in some instances that are similar to those held by natural persons.

Citizenship is a quaint notion and no longer a requirement, now that foreign companies can speak in our political process.

Non-citizens already had free speech rights in the U.S. before Citizens United. That didn't change the Constitutional requirement that a candidate for the House of Representatives be a U.S. Citizen.

There is a difference between the right to free speech and the required qualifications to run for Congress.
posted by The World Famous at 3:57 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

There is a difference between the right to free speech and the required qualifications to run for Congress.

Until recently, we thought there was a difference between corporate speech during an election and private citizen speech during an election. Seems we were wrong about that, so why wouldn't we be wrong about this?
posted by hippybear at 4:03 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

We both know it's going to be i^TM, IRFH. Insufferable elites and all that.

i^TM keed, i^TM keed!
posted by Decimask at 4:04 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Lawrence Lessig is arguing that the key to Citizens United is not that does anything special with the idea of corporate personhood, but that it is focused on the idea of spending as speech, which then becomes something guaranteed by the Constitution for all speakers. That means citizens and non-citizens - thus not only allowing American corporations to spend, but foreign corporations and individuals.
posted by evilangela at 4:05 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

The best thing about this satire is that they (perhaps unknowingly) don't credit the key line -- "We bought it; we paid for it; and we're going to keep it." -- to it's source. Who else but Ronald Reagan? What was he talking about? Why the Panama Canal Zone -- why the hell would we give that back to the two-bit country that owns it just because the lease we signed says we have to? Screw them!

While running for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976, Ronald Reagan stumbled onto an issue that energized his upstart campaign. In stop after stop, he recalled, people expressed "utter disbelief" that an American president — the Republican incumbent, Gerald R. Ford — would even think of relinquishing control over the Panama Canal. Knowing next to nothing about its history, but quite a lot about the politics of flag-waving, Reagan quickly turned the canal into a symbol of American resolve in an increasingly dangerous and disrespectful world. "We bought it, we paid for it, it's ours," he told the cheering crowds, and "we are going to keep it." NY Times (Book Review!)
posted by The Bellman at 4:05 PM on March 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

Interesting question. On what grounds is Murray Hill, Inc. not qualified?

It is not a human being.
posted by DU at 4:05 PM on March 16, 2010

Because the Founders meant natural persons when they drafted those requirements. The corporation was a much different thing back then. I'm not sure if the legal fiction of corporate personhood had been invented back then.

Obvs. Although by this argument corps shouldn't have all the other rights they enjoy.

The problem isn't with that fiction--you can't have the world we know without it.

Oh sweet jebus. We can't have the world we know without earthquakes and malaria either.
posted by DU at 4:07 PM on March 16, 2010

Until recently, we thought there was a difference between corporate speech during an election and private citizen speech during an election. Seems we were wrong about that, so why wouldn't we be wrong about this?

So, I guess I'm a little confused. I thought this was about Citizens United. Are you telling me we're now protesting Supreme Court jurisprudence that does not yet exist?
posted by The World Famous at 4:07 PM on March 16, 2010

Non-citizens already had free speech rights in the U.S. before Citizens United

Non-citizens were deported for being former members of the Communist Party (cite), although it was prosecuted as an immigration case. That doesn't sound like they were accorded much free speech, to me.

Are you telling me we're now protesting Supreme Court jurisprudence that does not yet exist?

Well, you did write this:

[there is] disagreement among the Justices as to the question of whether corporations should have rights in some instances that are similar to those held by natural persons.

Against the backdrop of bank bailouts and Wall Street handouts given without any oversight, there's some legitimate concern that Citizens United is just the start of very troubling laws and rulings that are handing our political system over to business interests, piece by piece.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:26 PM on March 16, 2010

Non-citizens were deported for being former members of the Communist Party (cite), although it was prosecuted as an immigration case. That doesn't sound like they were accorded much free speech, to me.

And Citizens United is what changed that? Huh. I thought there were a few intervening years between McCarthyism and Citizens United.

Against the backdrop of bank bailouts and Wall Street handouts given without any oversight, there's some legitimate concern that Citizens United is just the start of very troubling laws and rulings that are handing our political system over to business interests, piece by piece.

I am not aware of any disagreement - or even hint thereof - among the Justices or, really, anyone else, as to whether or not corporations are natural persons.
posted by The World Famous at 4:31 PM on March 16, 2010

Against the backdrop of bank bailouts and Wall Street handouts given without any oversight, there's some legitimate concern that Citizens United is just the start of very troubling laws and rulings that are handing our political system over to business interests, piece by piece.

Exactly. And my specific concern is this US Supreme Court's conservative majority, which appears to be willing to rule in favor of corporations no matter what. Citizens United and the Lily Ledbetter case are just two examples of this very disturbing trend in the Supreme Court's rulings since Alito and Roberts came aboard.
posted by bearwife at 4:32 PM on March 16, 2010

And Citizens United is what changed that? Huh. I thought there were a few intervening years between McCarthyism and Citizens United.

So now you agree, based on evidence, that non-citizens don't have free speech rights.

But you also argue that it's okay for foreign companies to influence our political process because non-citizens have always had free speech rights.

One of your two statements contradicts the truth of the other.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:38 PM on March 16, 2010

I thought there were a few intervening years between McCarthyism and Citizens United.

And if the time period bothers you, I'm sure we could find many examples of "McCarthyism" during the Dubya years (and even during Obama's term).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:40 PM on March 16, 2010

So now you agree, based on evidence, that non-citizens don't have free speech rights.

Not at all. I agree that their rights have been violated and that your example is a good one of a time when they were clearly violated.

But you also argue that it's okay for foreign companies to influence our political process because non-citizens have always had free speech rights.

I make no such argument.

You refer to "your two statements," but you're actually not referring to any statement that I made.
posted by The World Famous at 4:58 PM on March 16, 2010

You refer to "your two statements," but you're actually not referring to any statement that I made.

Okay. Here is the specific statement of yours, to which I was referring:

Non-citizens already had free speech rights in the U.S. before Citizens United.

So your statements seemed contradictory to me, which leads me to my next point:

If you agree with the Citizens United ruling or you are playing devil's advocate for it for the purposes of discussion, that's fine. I'd like to opportunity to learn more about it, because its consequences will be vast and far-reaching for all Americans, myself included.

But I'd also like to see some acknowledgment from its defenders that, while we play lip service to granting people rights, some rights are considered more right than others.

We'll give companies — foreign or otherwise — the opportunity to buy laws, legislators and judges, and we'll find a way to interprete our Constitution to make this palatable to the public, but we'll also throw out non-citizens for agreeing with Karl Marx, or hold people indefinitely in Guantanamo in violation of due process, use the system to bust up labor unions (who are themselves agents of "free speech"), etc.

Do you understand why this might be a problem to some people, and why this ruling might be satirized by having a business just come out and openly run for political office?

People who defend this ruling seem to make no attempt to understand its consequences, not to mention dismiss the looming larger concerns about cash-based corruption that motivate others' concerns.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:12 PM on March 16, 2010

So this is the obvious parody that came out like a week after the ruling, right? Yes, just checked.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:21 PM on March 16, 2010

And yeah, the ruling is somewhat disturbing, but I don't get the consistent need to interpret it at a third-grade level. No one ever said corporations were actual people. That would be incredibly incredibly stupid.
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:25 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Now would this be a a Yes Men or a No Men thing?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:30 PM on March 16, 2010

U.S.A™
posted by sundri at 5:33 PM on March 16, 2010

See also
posted by lalochezia at 5:34 PM on March 16, 2010

Blazecock Pileon, the problem with satirizing Citizens United by having a business just come out and openly run for political office is that that satire doesn't really say anything about Citizens United, which expressly recognized that corporations are not natural persons. There is no question that not only is a corporation not a legal person in that sense, but that there is absolutely no chance at all of the Supreme Court ever holding that a corporation is a person in that sense.

If the point is that, in light of Citizens United, a corporation might as well be allowed to run for office, then that point seem fairly ignorant both of the actual meaning of Citizens United and, more importantly, of the other existing campaign finance laws that apply. Is political speech the same thing as running for office? I don't think so. Indeed, the citizen/non-citizen distinction is useful in illustrating the point: Non-citizens have First Amendment rights to free speech in the U.S., while they are not Constitutionally qualified to run for Congressional office.

The fact that the First Amendment rights of non-citizens (and, frankly, of citizens as well) have been trampled throughout the history of the U.S., in violation of not only the spirit of the Constitution but of long-standing jurisprudence, is disturbing and wrong. But it is not the same thing as saying that non-citizens do not have First Amendment rights. Likewise, due process violations in Gitmo and elsewhere are troubling and wrong - but have no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether certain corporations should have the right to participate in political discourse.

People who defend this ruling seem to make no attempt to understand its consequences, not to mention dismiss the looming larger concerns about cash-based corruption that motivate others' concerns.

Is cash-based corruption on a corporate level worse than cash-based corruption on an individual level? An individual with lots of money has the right to produce political ads or donate to a campaign purely out of a desire to advance his financial interests. Should that individual lose his First Amendment rights because of his motives in participating in political discourse?

Likewise, if a corporation (for the sake of argument, a closely-held corporation, rather than a public one) exists for the purpose of advancing a worthy political cause, do its pure motives factor into the question of whether it should have First Amendment rights to participate in political discourse?

The complication in the discussion of the issue seems to arise out of people's equating the term "corporation" with the concept of greed and corruption and then attempting to make policy not based on Constitutional principles, but based on assigning value to motives and granting rights based on whether the motives of those seeking those rights are pure.

While I don't necessarily agree with Citizens United, I don't think the purity of the motives of the person (natural or otherwise) seeking rights is relevant to the analysis.
posted by The World Famous at 5:38 PM on March 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

If corporations are citizens, can they be drafted?
posted by stinkycheese at 5:40 PM on March 16, 2010

This is totally a double. Did you even search past posts before putting this up?
posted by koeselitz at 6:02 PM on March 16, 2010

koeselitz you are right, but alas it was on pacifica radio last night so now it has some buzz. You are like killing their buzz, man.
posted by bukvich at 7:09 PM on March 16, 2010

It's hilariously scary to watch liberals cite the communist witch hunts as precedent which should have been approved by the Supreme Court. Is everybody that eager to seize upon any excuse to ban political speech we don't like, without even considering how the half-baked rationalizations might be turned against us later? Liberalism has faults, but I didn't think nationalistic nonsense like "Only citizens should have free speech rights!" was supposed to be among them. People have freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly to join with other people and appoint someone to speak for them, and freedom of the press regardless of how expensive a good printing press is or how sad it is that not everybody can afford its best technological descendants.

But perhaps you should just censor my opinion, too? After all, I spent $5 to have it published by MetaFilter Network, Incorporated. And like the lawyer against the non-profit Citizen's United said, we should even be able to ban books if it was a corporation that published them.
posted by roystgnr at 7:24 PM on March 16, 2010

One of the benefits of MetaFilter is occasionally getting something BEFORE everybody else on the web. As we did with this whole thing in January. The links may vary, but this is truly a DOUBLE in spirit.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:26 PM on March 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Is cash-based corruption on a corporate level worse than cash-based corruption on an individual level? An individual with lots of money has the right to produce political ads or donate to a campaign purely out of a desire to advance his financial interests. Should that individual lose his First Amendment rights because of his motives in participating in political discourse?

There are individual spending limits and restrictions that corporations are effectively able to circumvent by standing in as proxies for the individuals who direct their spending. Effectively, this law allows you to circumvent the law if you can afford to incorporate. It's a free speech tax.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:45 PM on March 16, 2010

Impeach activist justice Clarence Thomas! He supports the Free Speech Tax!
posted by saulgoodman at 7:47 PM on March 16, 2010

Effectively, this law allows you to circumvent the law if you can afford to incorporate. It's a free speech tax.

Can you point me to the language in the opinion itself that leads you to believe that this is the case? I mean, I can imagine that, if Citizens United actually held that any corporation of any kind could participate exactly like a natural person in campaign finance, that theoretically, someone with vast wealth could form thousands of corporations for the sole purpose of funneling their personal money to campaigns up to the limit for each corporation. The question of whether that will happen is a legitimate one. But does Citizens United, in your interpretation of the case itself, actually allow that worst-case scenario? Since I haven't read the entire opinion, but only portions of it, I'm not in a position to rebut your argument effectively. Can you provide some actual quotes or cites to back up that what you're arguing is a good faith interpretation of the case itself?

(Also, I don't really understand how your assertion is a response to my question of whether an individual should lose his First Amendment rights because of his motives in participating in political discourse.)
posted by The World Famous at 7:52 PM on March 16, 2010

The complication in the discussion of the issue seems to arise out of people's equating the term "corporation" with the concept of greed and corruption and then attempting to make policy not based on Constitutional principles, but based on assigning value to motives and granting rights based on whether the motives of those seeking those rights are pure.

As defenders of corporations are always so quick to argue, corporations have no moral or legal obligations to society. Their only ethical obligation is to maximize owner/shareholder value. While it may not be fair to "equate the term 'corporation' with the concept of greed and corruption," as you say, it is certainly fair to characterize corporations as morally nihilistic legal fictions whose motivations by definition can only be selfish.

Now, if you're either a sociopath or a "conservative," you might find it strange that so many people have reservations about giving an over-sized political megaphone to a fictional legal entity that necessarily embodies this unfortunate combination of anti-social traits (moral vacuousness; relentless pursuit of self-interest). After all, amorality and selfishness are, in your narrow world view, the true universal condition of humanity, and everything else is just a scam.

But to the rest of us, it seems like a really stupid and self-destructive way to go.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:06 PM on March 16, 2010

The question of whether that will happen is a legitimate one. But does Citizens United, in your interpretation of the case itself, actually allow that worst-case scenario?

Not sure. But even in the best case, it allows people who shell out the money to incorporate to spend additional money that isn't legally considered theirs to support the candidate of their choice. So it effectively imposes a tax on free speech.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:12 PM on March 16, 2010

Goddamnit, bring on Snow Crash already. If we're doomed for franchised burbclaves and corporate feudalism, let's get it on. Cut out the tedious bullshit in between and just bring it.

Frogs in pots, indeed.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:18 PM on March 16, 2010

As defenders of corporations are always so quick to argue, corporations have no moral or legal obligations to society.

Corporations have extensive legal obligations.

While it may not be fair to "equate the term 'corporation' with the concept of greed and corruption," as you say, it is certainly fair to characterize corporations as morally nihilistic legal fictions whose motivations by definition can only be selfish.

True. That's really not an argument against political participation, though, is it? Selfishness disqualifies one from political discourse? I agree with your factual assertions, but I don't think the argument follows.

I also think you are probably giving too narrow a meaning to the term "selfish." A nonprofit corporation, like the one at issue in Citizens United, is not legally or ethically obligated to be profitable or selfish in any sense other than to accomplish the political goals of those who formed the corporation.

I'm a bit confused by your argument, since on the one hand you argue that all corporations are selfish and are legally required to maximize the financial interests of their owners and shareholders (which is not true of the type of corporation contemplated in the Citizens United opinion), and on the other hand, you argue that Citizens United permits a well-heeled activist to start corporations for the sole purpose of political advocacy, rather than profit maximization and financial self-interest.

Now, if you're either a sociopath or a "conservative," you might find it strange that so many people have reservations about giving an over-sized political megaphone to a fictional legal entity that necessarily embodies this unfortunate combination of anti-social traits (moral vacuousness; relentless pursuit of self-interest).

I am neither a sociopath nor a conservative. I do, however, find it strange that so many people are opposed to the idea of permitting citizens to pool their resources and form collective organizations for the purpose of amplifying their political voice through a nonprofit, just because the word "corporation" is used. Again, while it is entirely possible - even likely - that morally vacuous nonprofit political corporations exist and will continue to exist, I don't think it is anywhere near the by-definition state that you are portraying. And even if it is, is there something fundamentally unethical or immoral about political advocacy that is self-interested or morally vacuous (whatever that means)?

But even in the best case, it allows people who shell out the money to incorporate to spend additional money that isn't legally considered theirs to support the candidate of their choice.

See, as I read it, that's really not the case.

So it effectively imposes a tax on free speech.

That's an effective soundbite, but I don't think it's really accurate. It would be more accurate to say that it imposes no tax on any free speech other than political contributions above the individual limits, with the caveat that even those additional amounts are capped and shared with anyone else who supports the corporation that is so limited. It creates an additional forum for free speech that costs more than others. It does not tax any speech that was already free before Citizens United.

As I read it, the opinion is far narrower than most people realize.
posted by The World Famous at 8:35 PM on March 16, 2010