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:


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), Feb 4th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Xyro TR1 (profile), Feb 4th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    Well

    I'll be waiting for all the record companies to jump at this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 4th, 2010 @ 3:17pm

    Oh thank god that's a joke...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), Feb 4th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    JonMontgo (profile), Feb 4th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 4th, 2010 @ 3:42pm

    Hey wait...

    Regarding Google... wouldn't a corporation have to be 35 years old to run for president?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    reboog711 (profile), Feb 4th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Danny (profile), Feb 4th, 2010 @ 4:01pm

    We are registered at The Limited

    I am proposing to my girlfriend's LLC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Feb 4th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Feb 4th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    zaven (profile), Feb 4th, 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).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    OMG, Feb 4th, 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!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 4th, 2010 @ 6:19pm

    The more I think about, this seems like one of those things that we laugh about now, but...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 4th, 2010 @ 6:27pm

    If a corporation is a person, then isn't owning a corporation akin to slavery?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dsf, Feb 5th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DNY (profile), Feb 5th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    the best toe on ur feet, Feb 6th, 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!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 6th, 2010 @ 2:04pm

    Thought corporations already RAN congress... but don't the 'candidates' have to be a citizen? Wouldn't that disqualify a 'corporation'?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mhenriday (profile), Feb 7th, 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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Caleb Groves, Feb 10th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This