A Corporation is technically a group of people (the
owners to be specific)
acting together as one, with some
legal rules to limit liability overflowing
between the
individual people and corporate identity (in both
directions).
Thus corporations should be subject to any quantitative
limits on its owners, with no double-dipping allowed. Thus
if one human owner
is limited to one vote, his corporation
cannot cast an extra vote in addition
to the one cast by the
owner. If the owner is not allowed to delegate his vote
to
his lawyer, he is not allowed to delegate it to the
employees of his
corporation either. If one human owner is
limited to contributing $X to a
political campaign, he
cannot increase that amount by going through his
corporation, and a multi-owner corporation will need to
clear its campaign
spending with each owner to ensure they
don't use contribution rights already
used or delegated to a
sister corporation.
There is also a legal
argument to be made about the
degree to which corporate officers are empowered
to act on
behalf of the owners in matters not usually the domain of
that
specific corporation, and if unanimity among owners is
needed to increase that
delegation of powers from the
owners. For instance if I own a company that
repairs cars,
I may not want the petrol head that I hired to run it to
make
political statements on my behalf, as he might belong
to a different party than
me. Ditto if I own a 0.0000001%
stake in a big car factory and don't
politically agree with
the professional company execs. Situation would be very
different if I owned a company type that makes political
statements as a
business, such as a newspaper or an
advertising agency specializing in
political campaigns, in
which case they would probably not be empowered to
tamper
with cars on my behalf.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
