Support NeoGAF

[Salvor.Hardin]

Just go all out.

It would have been a lot more interesting if those numbers represented company and business contributions rather than employee contributions. Employees of any company should rightfully contribute to whomever they think would make for a better President, and so this picture seems a tad bit disingenuous, despite the note at the moment.

 

[Sirpopopop]

corporations should not have free speech. People have free speech. Corporations are not people. For that alone, i hope Obama gets a true people's supreme court judge on that will repeal that crap.

Corporations have been vested the rights of people for years now.

You aren't stopping that train! CHOO CHOO!

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

PLEASE let there be a defense force for this, so I can say something to him that should get me banned.

Just out of curiousity, why does this anger you so much, when groups of individuals can already contribute as much as they want to. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but what's the difference between a company sponsoring a candidate, and a bunch of rich people sponsoring a candidate? The only thing I can think of is that the contributors can assign a separate entity to that donation and not have it attached to themselves. But otherwise, the effects are the same.

 

[rohlfinator]

Just out of curiousity, why does this anger you so much, when groups of individuals can already contribute as much as they want to. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but what's the difference between a company sponsoring a candidate, and a bunch of rich people sponsoring a candidate? The only thing I can think of is that the contributors can assign a separate entity to that donation and not have it attached to themselves. But otherwise, the effects are the same.

The group's donation is (ostensibly) made up of the fruits of their labor and represents their individual interests. The company's donation was earned largely by a bunch of other people who may or may not agree with the results, and it only represents the rather slim interests (which candidate will make us more money) of the relatively small group of people who were entrusted with managing that money.

 

[Jharp]

If shutting down the New York Times would mean a shut down Fox/News Corp and more funding to NPR, I'd be in support.

Hear hear

 

[Chichikov]

Agreed. Shut down the New York Times.

I fail to see the connection.
Freedom of the press is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment and it has nothing to do with corporate personhood.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

The group's donation is (ostensibly) made up of the fruits of their labor and represents their individual interests. The company's donation was earned largely by a bunch of other people who may or may not agree with the results, and it only represents the rather slim interests (which candidate will make us more money) of the relatively small group of people who were entrusted with managing that money.

Extending that line of thought, do you expect every company to use its cash flow according to the will of the majority of employees? Shareholders own the company and with the advice of executives and managers, make financial decisions. Contributing to the earnings of the company gives you as much of a right to decide how that money is spent as a Walmart cashier has a say in which accountancy firm Walmart should employ.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I fail to see the connection.
Freedom of the press is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment and it has nothing to do with corporate personhood.

Corporations are covered by the first amendment. Even the most liberal Supreme Court justice can agree with that. And campaign contributions are considered free speech.

 

[Chichikov]

Corporations are covered by the first amendment. Even the most liberal Supreme Court justice can agree with that. And campaign contributions are considered free speech.

That's not the point that is being argued here.
What I'm saying is that corporate personhood and their right for free speech has nothing to do with freedom of the press, and you can overturn that abomination without hurting freedom of the press (which was indeed protected well before this derangement infected our courts).

 

[empty vessel]

Agreed. Shut down the New York Times.

We--or rather New Yorkers--are certainly empowered to do so. The New York Times, having been created and bestowed powers by the government, is an extension of government power, fully subject to the people's control. Else, it ain't popular sovereignty.

Of course, recognizing the people's power is not the same thing as exercising as it, i.e, your post is a non sequitur.

 

[KtSlime]

Corporations are covered by the first amendment. Even the most liberal Supreme Court justice can agree with that. And campaign contributions are considered free speech.

The institution of the Supreme Court is also corrupt. While what they say may be law, law does not mean just.

 

[Chichikov]

We--or rather New Yorkers--are certainly empowered to do so. The New York Times, having been created and bestowed powers by the government, is an extension of government power, fully subject to the people's control. Else, it ain't popular sovereignty.

Of course, recognizing the people's power is not the same thing as exercising as it, i.e, your post is a non sequitur.

They still have 1st amendment protection (freedom of press, not speech), don't they?
I'm fairly certain that New Yorkers can't actually do that, at least not without a very good reason.
And I'm fine with that.

 

[empty vessel]

They still have 1st amendment protection (freedom of press, not speech), don't they?

I don't think so.* At the time the First Amendment was passed, there were 0 media corporations in the United States. It was never intended to protect corporate activity, which did not arise on the scale it exists now until much later. At the time, corporations were recognized as governmental entities. (Indeed, many of the original 13 colonies themselves were corporations.)

* When I say I don't think so, I mean philosophically and doctrinally (consistent with popular sovereignty). In the modern legal era, yes they have 1st Amendment protection, but this subverts the American revolution that established the idea of popular rule.

I'm fairly certain that New Yorkers can't actually do that, at least not without a very good reason.

If that is true, then New York cannot be considered a democracy but must be considered a government of inherent power independent from the will of the people over which it rules. The government of New York, pursuant to the authority granted by its people, created The New York Times Company. If it can't destroy it, then the people of New York cannot destroy something that their government created. That has grave implications.

And I'm fine with that.

I think there is a difference between bestowing rights on corporate entities (which fundamentally can change the nature of government) versus what it might be wise or just for a citizenry to do. That The New York Times Company does not have a right to speech does not mean that citizens should not allow it to speak or take extreme caution when it precludes it from speaking.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

That's not the point that is being argued here.
What I'm saying is that corporate personhood and their right for free speech has nothing to do with freedom of the press, and you can overturn that abomination without hurting freedom of the press (which was indeed protected well before this derangement infected our courts).

How do you realitically distinguish between the press and other corporations?
Are you arguing that there is a distinction?

 

[The Librarian]

There might be. Too bad he didn't say that. Read what I responded to please, not what you thought up in your head.

Oh please. You knew what he meant, and you were responding to get a reaction. Congratulations, you got it.

 

[KtSlime]

I think looking at intent is also important. The intent behind the first amendment was to give individuals a voice, allowing people to state their grievances, express what rights they believe they should have protected by the government, and to make sure that the government doesn't just snuff opposing views out thus rendering the democratic process ineffective.

Giving corporations the right to buy elections in all likelihood opposes the very intent of the first amendment, which is to protect people and make democracy possible.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't think so.* At the time the First Amendment was passed, there were 0 media corporations in the United States. It was never intended to protect corporate activity, which did not arise on the scale it exists now until much later. At the time, corporations were recognized as governmental entities. (Indeed, many of the original 13 colonies themselves were corporations.)

* When I say I don't think so, I mean philosophically and doctrinally (consistent with popular sovereignty). In the modern legal era, yes they have 1st Amendment protection, but this subverts the American revolution that established the idea of popular rule.

But The New York Times Company is not the New York Times, it's its publisher.
I agree that The New York Times Company should not have constitutional protection vis-a-vis freedom of speech, but the paper itself still have freedom of the press protection, doesn't it?

I'm not aware of a precedent when the government tried to close a paper (though I'm hardly an expert) but in New York Times Co. v. United States (AKA the pentagon papers decision) the supreme court thrown out a restraining order against the times, I would assume that it would've deemed closing of a paper altogether unconstitutional as well.

I think there is a difference between bestowing rights on corporate entities (which fundamentally can change the nature of government) versus what it might be wise or just for a citizenry to do. That The New York Times Company does not have a right to speech does not mean that citizens should not allow it to speak or take extreme caution when it precludes it from speaking.

So in your mind, what does freedom of the press (as talked about in the 1st amendment or in general) means in practical terms?
Is it nothing than the collective freedom of speech of its individuals in your opinion?

How do you realitically distinguish between the press and other corporations? ?

Like everything in the constitution, this if for the courts to decide.

Are you arguing that there is a distinction?

The bill of rights does.
Also, are you arguing that there isn't?

Like, The Washington Post, New York Times, Microsoft.
One of those things is not like the other...

 

[Oblivion]

LOL. Seems James O'Keefe's stooges may be in a bit of a pickle:

James O’Keefe’s latest video features surrogates appearing to commit voter fraud in yesterday’s New Hampshire primary election, all in an attempt to highlight voter fraud, a problem which is by-and-large nonexistent in the Granite State.

The undercover video shows unnamed individuals working at O’Keefe’s behest approaching polling stations throughout New Hampshire. After poll workers asked for the person’s name, O’Keefe’s agents gave the name of a voter who died within the past few weeks, before then receiving a ballot to vote. The individuals asked the poll workers if they needed ID to prove their identity, and when poll workers confirmed that they did not, O’Keefe’s men insisted on returning to their car to retrieve their ID and returned the ballot.

However, in highlighting the non-problem of voter fraud in New Hampshire and elsewhere, O’Keefe’s agents appear to have committed voter fraud themselves. Section 659:34 of the New Hampshire code defines voter fraud as when a person (highlights are ours):

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/11/402756/james-o-keefe-voter-fraud/


Oh god, this is delicious. Admittedly, it sucks that his stooges will ultimately be getting the blame instead of that douchebag O'Keefe himself.

 

[Chichikov]

LOL. Seems James O'Keefe's stooges may be in a bit of a pickle:



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/11/402756/james-o-keefe-voter-fraud/


Oh god, this is delicious. Admittedly, it sucks that his stooges will ultimately be getting the blame instead of that douchebag O'Keefe himself.

I hate this cunt as much as the next guy, but he should not be charged with voter fraud any more than someone trying to show holes in the TSA protection should be charged with terrorism.

 

[Oblivion]

GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney’s belief that “corporations are people,” will place him in very lonely company when he travels to South Carolina for the next chapter of the Republican primary contest. Only 33 percent of the states voters agree with Romney and the five conservatives on the Supreme Court that corporations are the exact same thing as human beings. Sixty-seven percent take the more sensible view that “only people are people.

Wow, somewhat impressed, South Carolina. Good job.

 

[empty vessel]

But The New York Times Company is not the New York Times, it's its publisher.
I agree that The New York Times Company should not have constitutional protection vis-a-vis freedom of speech, but the paper itself still have freedom of the press protection, doesn't it?

Not under a strict conception of popular sovereignty. Because The New York Times is owned by the The New York Times Company. It's a corporate (i.e., governmental) entity, albeit run in the interests only of The New York Times Company's shareholders.

I'm not aware of a precedent when the government tried to close a paper (though I'm hardly an expert) but in New York Times Co. v. United States (AKA the pentagon papers decision) the supreme court thrown out a restraining order against the times, I would assume that it would've deemed closing of a paper altogether unconstitutional as well.

Oh yes, no doubt, but that is the modern legal era. Sorry for the confusion, but I do not mean to be describing the current legal landscape. My opinion is that the modern legal landscape--by failing to understand corporations as governmental entities--has turned the American revolution (and its establishment of popular sovereignty) on its head. The legal transformation from an understanding of corporations as constrained public institutions to an understanding of them as unconstrained private institutions was a gradual development, and is described in this paper (PDF).

So in your mind, what does freedom of the press (as talked about in the 1st amendment or in general) means in practical terms?
Is it nothing than the collective freedom of speech of its individuals in your opinion?

I think it applies to citizens, yes, not corporations. At the time of the founding, the press was entirely comprised of citizens, not corporations and their paid agents. The irony is that because of technological advancement, it is a million times easier (not calculated empirically) to disseminate information than it was in the 18th century. So, effectively, the First Amendment at the time protected mostly wealthy individuals who owned printing presses. Now (in my understanding of it) it protects an immensely broader swath of the population who have the power to publish. Indeed, we are all the press. And, I have to confess, even though they may sometimes make a decent facsimile, I don't consider any for-profit media corporation to be press.

 

[Zabka]

Corporations should be downgraded from people to bears or maybe gorillas.

 

[rohlfinator]

Extending that line of thought, do you expect every company to use its cash flow according to the will of the majority of employees? Shareholders own the company and with the advice of executives and managers, make financial decisions. Contributing to the earnings of the company gives you as much of a right to decide how that money is spent as a Walmart cashier has a say in which accountancy firm Walmart should employ.

No, I'm just saying that they are different situations. Corporate donations are by their nature less democratic than individual contributions. Corporations are free to spend their money how they like to a great extent, but I don't think that interfering with the democratic process is a "financial decision" that they should be allowed to make.

 

[Chichikov]

My opinion is that the modern legal landscape--by failing to understand corporations as governmental entities--has turned the American revolution (and its establishment of popular sovereignty) on its head. The legal transformation from an understanding of corporations as constrained public institutions to an understanding of them as unconstrained private institutions was a gradual development, and is described in this paper (PDF).

I agree with everything you wrote here.
But at the same time, I see nothing wrong with the people giving up some of that power in order to sustain something as important to democracy as freedom of the press.
Which is what they did, in the 1st amendment.

I think it applies to citizens, yes, not corporations. At the time of the founding, the press was entirely comprised of citizens, not corporations and their paid agents. The irony is that because of technological advancement, it is a million times easier (not calculated empirically) to disseminate information than it was in the 18th century. So, effectively, the First Amendment at the time protected mostly wealthy individuals who owned printing presses. Now (in my understanding of it) it protects an immensely broader swath of the population who have the power to publish. Indeed, we are all the press.

Is this about the fact that it's incorporated?
Like, if the NYT was privately owned, would your opinion be different?

And in practical terms, do you think we as a nation would've been better off if Nixon could've shut down the New York Times after the published they pentagon papers?
He sure had the public support to do that, and the public's will have been overturned by the supreme court.

 

[speculawyer]

Interesting

During a time when secular values are under constant attack by many religious leaders and political candidates, the Secular Coalition for America presents the 2012 Presidential Candidate Scorecard. This card reviews each of the major candidates in both the Democratic and Republican parties and examines their views on issues that are important to the nearly 50 million secular and nontheistic Americans who will help choose our president this upcoming November.

http://secular.org/content/2012-presidental-candidate-scorecard


Paul deserves an 'F' for church & state separation though.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Corporations are not people, but people made them. As far as I'm concerned those people should be able to give money to whomever they wish. Doing it through their business is a much bigger grey area though. The problem is that sure, what if you have no more than 100 dollars of campaign contributions. Then the media can have their way with you and they become the most influential people in the situation, because the candidates don't have enough money to fight back.

I'm not sure how I feel about PAC's because, shouldn't a group be able to get together and support a candidate if they wish?

What if a Corporation wants to support a candidate, because they believe that candidate would be better for them?

Solution.

Corporations can give money, but they have to be anonymous after a certain amount given.

 

[The Librarian]

Corporations are not people, but people made them. As far as I'm concerned those people should be able to give money to whomever they wish. Doing it through their business is a much bigger grey area though. The problem is that sure, what if you have no more than 100 dollars of campaign contributions. Then the media can have their way with you and they become the most influential people in the situation, because the candidates don't have enough money to fight back.

I'm not sure how I feel about PAC's because, shouldn't a group be able to get together and support a candidate if they wish?

What if a Corporation wants to support a candidate, because they believe that candidate would be better for them?

Solution.

Corporations can give money, but they have to be anonymous after a certain amount given.

..........................................

 

[Chichikov]

Corporations are not people, but people made them. As far as I'm concerned those people should be able to give money to whomever they wish. Doing it through their business is a much bigger grey area though. The problem is that sure, what if you have no more than 100 dollars of campaign contributions. Then the media can have their way with you and they become the most influential people in the situation, because the candidates don't have enough money to fight back.

I'm not sure how I feel about PAC's because, shouldn't a group be able to get together and support a candidate if they wish?

What if a Corporation wants to support a candidate, because they believe that candidate would be better for them?

Solution.

Corporations can give money, but they have to be anonymous after a certain amount given.

I don't think we should rely on donations to finance our election, this has an unavoidable corrupting effect in the long term.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

..........................................

I think he means anonymous to the candidate so he doesn't know who his major financiers are to prevent companies from having politicians in their pockets.

 

[rohlfinator]

Interesting


http://secular.org/content/2012-presidental-candidate-scorecard


Paul deserves an 'F' for church & state separation though.

Dat Huntsman. This is why people like the guy despite his economic views.

I think he means anonymous to the candidate so he doesn't know who his major financiers are to prevent companies from having politicians in their pockets.

Ahhhh... that makes a lot more sense now. I could get behind that. It's a step in the right direction at least.

 

[esquire]

How likely is the possibility that Mitt Romney would pick Ron Paul as his running mate?

 

[ReBurn]

No, I'm just saying that they are different situations. Corporate donations are by their nature less democratic than individual contributions. Corporations are free to spend their money how they like to a great extent, but I don't think that interfering with the democratic process is a "financial decision" that they should be allowed to make.

I think limits on individuals are still rather undemocratic in certain circumstances as well. Allowing private citizens to donate $30,800 to a political party means that wealthy individuals could have more power and influence than poorer individuals (and interference, if we apply similar reasoning to individual donations), which I think could disenfranchise poorer individuals in the democratic process. Candidates try to appease those who fund them, either directly or indirectly.

Corporations should not be allowed to donate money to any political entity in my opinion. Since they are government entities there is definitely a conflict of interest.

 

[The Librarian]

I think he means anonymous to the candidate so he doesn't know who his major financiers are to prevent companies from having politicians in their pockets.

I sure hope so, but that's not something we should settle on.

 

[KtSlime]

Corporations are not people, but people made them. As far as I'm concerned those people should be able to give money to whomever they wish. Doing it through their business is a much bigger grey area though. The problem is that sure, what if you have no more than 100 dollars of campaign contributions. Then the media can have their way with you and they become the most influential people in the situation, because the candidates don't have enough money to fight back.

I'm not sure how I feel about PAC's because, shouldn't a group be able to get together and support a candidate if they wish?

What if a Corporation wants to support a candidate, because they believe that candidate would be better for them?

Solution.

Corporations can give money, but they have to be anonymous after a certain amount given.

I think it would just be better to remove the money all together.

Anyone meeting requirements can run for president - they have to get X number of signatures, then the government gives you X hours of TV time, and X dollars to print flyers, and a tickets to do the tour around the states. Simple.

 

[empty vessel]

Is this about the fact that it's incorporated?
Like, if the NYT was privately owned, would your opinion be different?

Yes, and yes. This is a matter of government/citizen distinction. And since corporations fall on the government side of the ledger, they don't ever get rights. A government having rights (as against its citizens, who else?) is incompatible with rule by the people. Incorporation is not insignificant, because it bestows powers. It's not an empty gesture. It gives the citizens who own the corporation limited liability, which is a kind of immunity from suit for wrongdoing (which, not uncoincidentally, is what governments have). The citizens who own unincorporated entities are fully liable for all the damages they cause.

And in practical terms, do you think we as a nation would've been better off if Nixon could've shut down the New York Times after the published they pentagon papers?
He sure had the public support to do that, and the public's will have been overturned by the supreme court.

I think it was already too late at that point, quite frankly. Had media corporations never been recognized as press in the first place, other citizen press would have existed to disseminate the Pentagon Papers. In other words, there was never any reason for media corporations to exist at all. And, no, Nixon could not, consistent with the First Amendment, have shut down a citizen press publicizing the Pentagon Papers.

So I understand why the corporate "press" came to be protected in view of the ascendancy of the understanding of corporations as private entities. But it's all been a big clusterfuck that has had the effect of denying American citizens popular rule. And now with decisions like Citizens United the chickens are coming home to roost.

Corporations are not people, but people made them.

This is false. The government made them. People cannot confer unto themselves limited liability.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

I think it would just be better to remove the money all together.

Anyone meeting requirements can run for president - they have to get X number of signatures, then the government gives you X hours of TV time, and X dollars to print flyers, and a tickets to do the tour around the states. Simple.

no way the government should stay out of this completely, the candidates should have to raise the money on their own, and bring it in from supporters.

Maybe take corporations out of it, fine. Then whats next, telling someone who is super rich they can't support a candidate because they are rich? What about Super PAC's? I'm not sure how I feel about those.. but why should we take away the right to have a group form something like that.

 

[Reprise]

Allowing corporations to influence politics gives them two bites at the cherry instead of one for the everyday man.

That certainly goes against the one man one vote principle.

 

[The Librarian]

The country has gotten along just fine without Super PACs for over 200 years.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

The country has gotten along just fine without Super PACs for over 200 years.

maybe I need to research it more, but how big a difference have they actually made?

 

[Kosmo]

This is false. The government made them. People cannot confer unto themselves limited liability.

Who made government?

 

[Clevinger]

Maybe take corporations out of it, fine. Then whats next, telling someone who is super rich they can't support a candidate because they are rich?

No. And if we ever get there (we won't, because we probably won't ever get corporations out of it, and because it's a ridiculous scenario) we'll deal with that then.

 

[Reprise]

no way the government should stay out of this completely, the candidates should have to raise the money on their own, and bring it in from supporters.

Maybe take corporations out of it, fine. Then whats next, telling someone who is super rich they can't support a candidate because they are rich? What about Super PAC's? I'm not sure how I feel about those.. but why should we take away the right to have a group form something like that.

That's the way it works in AU, if you can prove that you will have a number of supporters (form a party and have people as members) the Electoral Commission will give you money depending on how many members you have.

Seems to work here, not much nepotism (people can still personally contribute) and freedom to create political parties is not impeded.

I'm pretty sure everything is on the books though so if they start doing shady deals the people can point to it and say "hey, what's up?"

 

[GhaleonEB]

maybe I need to research it more, but how big a difference have they actually made?

Enormous, and they're just getting warmed up.

Most recently, Romney's carpet bombed Iowa once Gingrich took the lead, and plunged.

 

[KtSlime]

no way the government should stay out of this completely, the candidates should have to raise the money on their own, and bring it in from supporters.

Maybe take corporations out of it, fine. Then whats next, telling someone who is super rich they can't support a candidate because they are rich? What about Super PAC's? I'm not sure how I feel about those.. but why should we take away the right to have a group form something like that.

I'm not sure you know the meanings of these words.

Why do you think it is better for candidates to get supporters to give them money so that they can convince others to vote them into office? It builds a class of people that do not come from the class they are supposed to represent.

Who made government?

I can't believe you are trying to play that.

 

[Clevinger]

That's the way it works in AU

Australia pisses me off. Not only do you guys have national healthcare, you have god damn proportional voting and all sorts of other cool stuff.

 

[ReBurn]

no way the government should stay out of this completely, the candidates should have to raise the money on their own, and bring it in from supporters.

Maybe take corporations out of it, fine. Then whats next, telling someone who is super rich they can't support a candidate because they are rich? What about Super PAC's? I'm not sure how I feel about those.. but why should we take away the right to have a group form something like that.

Super rich candidates are already limited in what they can spend directly.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

They can support whomever they like, but only up to a certain amount. I personally don't agree with the high limits on party donations, but that's a different story. I think Super PAC's allow the wealthy as well as corporations to make a mockery of campaign finance rules.

 

[Kalnos]

Australia pisses me off. Not only do you guys have national healthcare, you have god damn proportional voting and all sorts of other cool stuff.

but horrible censorship

 

[rohlfinator]

I think limits on individuals are still rather undemocratic in certain circumstances as well. Allowing private citizens to donate $30,800 to a political party means that wealthy individuals could have more power and influence than poorer individuals (and interference, if we apply similar reasoning to individual donations), which I think could disenfranchise poorer individuals in the democratic process. Candidates try to appease those who fund them, either directly or indirectly.

Corporations should not be allowed to donate money to any political entity in my opinion. Since they are government entities there is definitely a conflict of interest.

Yeah, I agree with this 100%. But a rich guy donating 30 grand has a lot less influence than a corporation donating hundreds of thousands (and potentially more). Both are issues that need to be addressed though.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

Enormous, and they're just getting warmed up.

Most recently, Romney's carpet bombed Iowa once Gingrich took the lead, and plunged.

Alright, so I'm against this.

However the government should never ever EVER give money to a political candidate. That sounds like the worst idea ever. Instead of working to get money, and gain the trust of the people, you just get money thrown at you. What is to stop a lot of people from running then?

There is something to be said for hard work.

I'm not sure you know the meanings of these words.

Why do you think it is better for candidates to get supporters to give them money so that they can convince others to vote them into office? It builds a class of people that do not come from the class they are supposed to represent.



I can't believe you are trying to play that.

Why shouldn't people have to work hard to gain campaign contributions?

 

[empty vessel]

Who made government?

The citizenry as a whole delegates power to the government. Corporations are in turn created by the government, i.e., the government delegates power to the corporate entity.

Citizenry-->government-->corporation.

But the government cannot delegate more power to the corporation than it has been granted by the citizenry. And bestowing rights on corporations (as against the citizenry as a whole) does just that. If the citizens (via the government) can create it, they can destroy it, and for any reason. Yet, the government says they cannot destroy it, or even so much as regulate it in particular spheres of activity (speech). So we have this government-created entity floating around that the citizenry cannot regulate. This means it has inherent power, which means it is unmoored from popular sovereignty.