the gaff that wasn't

the anti-corporate rule crowd may be making fun of mitt romney for telling an iowa fair audience that "corporations are people" but am starting to think what is really funny is how totally off base their jokes are. while i'm not sure if i am for romney, in this instance i agree with his assertion.

in his blog post on the comment, ilya shapiro argues that corporations don't have rights, however, they are made up of people who do. the fact that a group of people form an association (corporate or otherwise) does not strip them of their rights as individuals. furthermore, "corporate money always comes from, flows through, and ends up in human hands." corporations may not actually be people, but the fact that they represent a group of people should not disqualify them from political expression in the form of media comment or campaign donations.

to suggest, as person in the iowa crowd did, that corporations pay additional taxes is basically to say that the people who work for or have interests in those corporations should pay more (as this is what corporate tax amounts to). maybe they should pay more--i don't know--but can we really expect them to pay more and also then try to revoke their right to express their political preferences?

the real life equivalent is you and me going for lunch every day. only you always pay and i always pick the place. what if everyday i want to go for sushi because i like it and it is delicious, but you are a vegetarian. shouldn't you at least be able to say, "mercedes i don't eat meat or fish"? of course you should. similarly corporations as the representatives of groups of people should be able to express theirs.

i'm starting to think i might like this mittens guy (even though i disagree with him on stuff like marriage). or maybe i'm just freaked out about the economy and he kinda seems like a knight on a white horse and i've always been a sucker for a fairytale.

we'll see.


Mike said...

so your analogy is meant to imply that corporations are like the people that always buy our lunch?

It is true that people who have a stake in corporations shouldn't lose their rights as individuals. But should they get an extra level of "corporate rights" that people not in corporations don't have access to?

Mercedes said...

you go it. it seems like attacks on corporations basically amount to attacks on the wealthy. the majority can force the wealthy to pay for stuff....but that doesn't mean the wealthy can't say anything about it.

what kind of extra "corporate rights" are you talking about?