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:
Would UK Politicians Support The Digital Economy Bill If It Applied To Offline Activities As Well? (31)
More ACTA Leaks: Would Create Special Organization To Manage Worldwide Copyright Laws (28)
EU Proposes Criminalizing Inducing Infringement In ACTA Draft; Could Outlaw Google (34)
How Google's Anti-Microsoft Lobbying Effort Came Back To Bite Them (10)
Harvard Law Prof's Poor Economic Analysis Used As Cover For Unnecessary Fashion Copyright (13)
Brought to you by Floor64
About Techdirt | Contact Us | Advertise On Techdirt | Submit a Story | Twitter | Facebook
RSS
Twitter
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well
I'll be waiting for all the record companies to jump at this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: YES!
Well, I suppose that WOULD make the system more efficient....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh thank god that's a joke...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hey wait...
Regarding Google... wouldn't a corporation have to be 35 years old to run for president?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Well
It's a pity Sonny Bono's dead...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ha ha i love the onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wrong
wha?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Wrong
Don't pretend like you're confused, that infringes on my right to free speech!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
We are registered at The Limited
I am proposing to my girlfriend's LLC.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hey wait...
Also:
* Need to be 14-16 years to marry
* Cannot f*** startups
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: YES!
Cut out the middle-man.
The middle-men will never stand for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hey wait...
very good point.
it would also have to be a citizen which corporations to my knowledge do not hold citizenship.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
For Now
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The more I think about, this seems like one of those things that we laugh about now, but...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If a corporation is a person, then isn't owning a corporation akin to slavery?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ignorance of constitution
"Ha Ha guys, but you're doing a disservice."
SCOTUS has already done that
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
> Oh thank god that's a joke...
You think?
Most of the $H17 started as a joke.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thought corporations already RAN congress... but don't the 'candidates' have to be a citizen? Wouldn't that disqualify a 'corporation'?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment