Why did our founding fathers hate corporations?

[Bfgrn]

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

1) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process.

2) Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years.

3) But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge.

4) And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Corporate Personhood-Demeaning Our Bill of Rights - Reclaim Democracy.org

Thomas Jefferson Feared an Aristocracy of Corporations

"For the general operations of manufacturer, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manner and spirit of a people which preserve a public vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I hear the Founding Fathers were big fans of Obamacare and teachers' unions too.

 

[martybegan]

Delicious copypasta is Delicious.

If the founding fathers were so against corporations, I would think they would include restrictions on them in the constitution itself, or even as an amendment. The fact that it is neutral on it undermines the authors position that the founding fathers were anti-corporation.

If there was mistrust of these corporations, it was due to the policy of giving said corporations individual monopolies on a given portion of trade, such as tea. There the opposition wasn't to the corporation principle itself, but to the government sanctioned monopoly given to said corporation.

 

[washamericom]

there were no corporations then, you can't have a corporation without electricity.

 

[editec]

The Flounding Fathers understood the danger of giving a legal entity too much power.

Bfgrn got this exactly right, as did Martybegan when he noted

There the opposition wasn't to the corporation principle itself, but to the government sanctioned monopoly given to said corporation.

We unleashed a social FRANENSTEIN, folks, when the SCOTUS decided that corporations have citizen's rights and when they decided that corporate money = FREE SPEECH.

The erosion of CITIZENRY power is in direct proportion to the enhancement of CORPORATE POWER that has for most part occurred you our lifetimes.

I remind you AGAIN that the inventor of FASCISM, Benito Mussolini, told people that the social government system he invented (FASCISM) would be more precisely called CORPORATISM.

 

[martybegan]

The Flounding Fathers understood the danger of giving a legal entity too much power.

Bfgrn got this exactly right, as did Martybegan when he noted

There the opposition wasn't to the corporation principle itself, but to the government sanctioned monopoly given to said corporation.

We unleashed a social FRANENSTEIN, folks, when the SCOTUS decided that corporations have citizen's rights and when they decided that corporate money = FREE SPEECH.

The erosion of CITIZENRY power is in direct proportion to the enhancement of CORPORATE POWER that has for most part occurred you our lifetimes.

I remind you AGAIN that the inventor of FASCISM, Benito Mussolini, told people that the social government system he invented (FASCISM) would be more precisely called CORPORATISM.

Not quite what I was trying to get at.

The opposition was to a monopoly on a given product, i.e. tea. They had no issue with multiple entities trying to sell tea, but with one try to sell it, and with a tax on it they would be forced to pay.

 

[Oddball]

Delicious copypasta is Delicious.

If the founding fathers were so against corporations, I would think they would include restrictions on them in the constitution itself, or even as an amendment. The fact that it is neutral on it undermines the authors position that the founding fathers were anti-corporation.

If there was mistrust of these corporations, it was due to the policy of giving said corporations individual monopolies on a given portion of trade, such as tea. There the opposition wasn't to the corporation principle itself, but to the government sanctioned monopoly given to said corporation.

If they were so against corporations, to the point of hating them, why is it they created the corporation called "District of Columbia"?

351.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.

Records of the Government of the District of Columbia

 

[goldcatt]

The Founders didn't hate corporations so much as they didn't trust them, and they definitely wanted them divorced from the political process.

If they hated them, they would have banned them. That was not the case.

Corporations serve a purpose, and a valuable one. They aren't inherently evil, in fact they are a valuable tool that has been used to create a lot of wealth and innovation over time. Without the corporation we wouldn't be sitting here shooting the breeze on an internet forum about them.

The problem is when they step outside that purpose and start acting with the powers and rights of individuals, but none of an individual's accountability.

We're not yet to the point here in the U.S. where we were in colonial times, with sovereign corporations acting as de facto (and in many cases de jure) government, and hopefully we will never be. So the comparison isn't really apt. But corporations are certainly gaining more and more advantages over the individual as far as influence on government, and many see that as a problem. I see that as a problem.

Representational democracy is supposed to be for the benefit of the people to whom all rights are reserved, meaning individuals - not fictitious entities. Those entities should be entitled to limited rights related to their purpose, hence things like the century-old concept of "commercial speech", but they are not and should never be equal to natural persons much less referred to as "citizens".

And yes...by "corporation" I do mean all fictitious entities that fall under the broad umbrella, including non-profits and unions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

But I thought the Constitution was an outdated document written by old white men who owned slaves and oppressed women. Suddenly their opinion matters?

 

[bucs90]

Liberals don't hate corporations. They just demand to be paid an assload of money for doing an entry level job while getting a 30 hour work week, a 2 hour lunch break, a 1,000 sq/ft private office with a corner window, a company car, a company credit card, and a company issued hot female and cool puppy to keep them company.

All on the merit of simply haven gone to a liberal arts college and voted for Obama.


No, libs don't hate corporations, they just hate having to actually work their way up in one.

 

[martybegan]

The Founders didn't hate corporations so much as they didn't trust them, and they definitely wanted them divorced from the political process.

If they hated them, they would have banned them. That was not the case.

Corporations serve a purpose, and a valuable one. They aren't inherently evil, in fact they are a valuable tool that has been used to create a lot of wealth and innovation over time. Without the corporation we wouldn't be sitting here shooting the breeze on an internet forum about them.

The problem is when they step outside that purpose and start acting with the powers and rights of individuals, but none of an individual's accountability.

We're not yet to the point here in the U.S. where we were in colonial times, with sovereign corporations acting as de facto (and in many cases de jure) government, and hopefully we will never be. So the comparison isn't really apt. But corporations are certainly gaining more and more advantages over the individual as far as influence on government, and many see that as a problem. I see that as a problem.

Representational democracy is supposed to be for the benefit of the people to whom all rights are reserved, meaning individuals - not fictitious entities. Those entities should be entitled to limited rights related to their purpose, hence things like the century-old concept of "commercial speech", but they are not and should never be equal to natural persons much less referred to as "citizens".

And yes...by "corporation" I do mean all fictitious entities that fall under the broad umbrella, including non-profits and unions.

The all or nothing approach would probably be the one way to get around the first amendment issues that banning group speech, but still might not even work.

In the end all of these entities are really just groups of people. Shareholders in the case of a corporation, workers in the case of a union, people of like political goals in the case of a PAC. Given the rights to assembly and free speech, how does combining the two lead to the revocation of one of them?

 

[GHook93]

Um, the founding fathers seeked independence from the King! Meaning they seeked independence from government oversight, control, taxation without representation and dictatorship! They founded the country on Adam Smith's ideology of free market capitalism! It's an extreme stretch of reasoning to say Adam Smith's free market ideology wouldn't embrace corporations!

You say they hated corporations. You mean companies the issued stock to be traded on a stock exchange! LOL LOL, I do know the Dutch were the pioneers of stock trading, but there weren't any British, French, American etc. corporations back then and there weren't any stock markets. LOL LOL, you are trying to make a point that they hated that didn't even exist in America or Britian or wasn't even contemplated by them! LOL, it would be like me saying I hate the flying car!

 

[goldcatt]

The Founders didn't hate corporations so much as they didn't trust them, and they definitely wanted them divorced from the political process.

If they hated them, they would have banned them. That was not the case.

Corporations serve a purpose, and a valuable one. They aren't inherently evil, in fact they are a valuable tool that has been used to create a lot of wealth and innovation over time. Without the corporation we wouldn't be sitting here shooting the breeze on an internet forum about them.

The problem is when they step outside that purpose and start acting with the powers and rights of individuals, but none of an individual's accountability.

We're not yet to the point here in the U.S. where we were in colonial times, with sovereign corporations acting as de facto (and in many cases de jure) government, and hopefully we will never be. So the comparison isn't really apt. But corporations are certainly gaining more and more advantages over the individual as far as influence on government, and many see that as a problem. I see that as a problem.

Representational democracy is supposed to be for the benefit of the people to whom all rights are reserved, meaning individuals - not fictitious entities. Those entities should be entitled to limited rights related to their purpose, hence things like the century-old concept of "commercial speech", but they are not and should never be equal to natural persons much less referred to as "citizens".

And yes...by "corporation" I do mean all fictitious entities that fall under the broad umbrella, including non-profits and unions.

The all or nothing approach would probably be the one way to get around the first amendment issues that banning group speech, but still might not even work.

In the end all of these entities are really just groups of people. Shareholders in the case of a corporation, workers in the case of a union, people of like political goals in the case of a PAC. Given the rights to assembly and free speech, how does combining the two lead to the revocation of one of them?

The problem with that argument is the nature of the corporate structure itself.

The corporation as an entity is nothing but a legal construct, a shell, consisting of and governed by its charter. There is a veil of separation between the people who own and/or run the corporation and the entity itself. That's what is meant by "limited liability" - the corporate veil. Once that veil is pierced and the individual and corporate merged, the most beneficial aspect of incorporation is generally lost.

So the entity is, legally and structurally, entirely separate from the people who, as you put it, "make up" the workings of the entity. That's why it needed the fiction of limited "personhood" in the first place. There had to be a legal precept in place in order for a piece of paper to designate agents and do things like own property and pay taxes. That does not make that piece of paper a citizen, nor does it make it an individual.

What projecting those individual rights onto the entity itself does is pierce the veil in one direction, for the benefit of the fictitious entity. But there is no piercing in the opposite direction for any accountability or responsibility to be placed on the individuals whose rights are being piggybacked.

The entity itself is still entirely separate. Yet now it speaks with the "voice" and using the individual rights of the people who serve it. That commingles the individual and the corporate. When the individuals who serve the entity were, are and have always been able to speak for themselves, to organize to do so, and to otherwise exercise their rights - only using their own voices, individual accountability and money, without the veil to hide behind and without piercing or weakening that veil by doing so.

The legal fiction on top of a legal fiction here is one thing, and bad enough. The weakening of the corporate structure itself by piercing the veil in order for the individuals who own and operate it to use its resources in exercise of their individual rights and agendas is another. It's not only bad for individuals, it's bad for the corporate entity as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Founders didn't hate corporations so much as they didn't trust them, and they definitely wanted them divorced from the political process.

If they hated them, they would have banned them. That was not the case.

Corporations serve a purpose, and a valuable one. They aren't inherently evil, in fact they are a valuable tool that has been used to create a lot of wealth and innovation over time. Without the corporation we wouldn't be sitting here shooting the breeze on an internet forum about them.

The problem is when they step outside that purpose and start acting with the powers and rights of individuals, but none of an individual's accountability.

We're not yet to the point here in the U.S. where we were in colonial times, with sovereign corporations acting as de facto (and in many cases de jure) government, and hopefully we will never be. So the comparison isn't really apt. But corporations are certainly gaining more and more advantages over the individual as far as influence on government, and many see that as a problem. I see that as a problem.

Representational democracy is supposed to be for the benefit of the people to whom all rights are reserved, meaning individuals - not fictitious entities. Those entities should be entitled to limited rights related to their purpose, hence things like the century-old concept of "commercial speech", but they are not and should never be equal to natural persons much less referred to as "citizens".

And yes...by "corporation" I do mean all fictitious entities that fall under the broad umbrella, including non-profits and unions.

The all or nothing approach would probably be the one way to get around the first amendment issues that banning group speech, but still might not even work.

In the end all of these entities are really just groups of people. Shareholders in the case of a corporation, workers in the case of a union, people of like political goals in the case of a PAC. Given the rights to assembly and free speech, how does combining the two lead to the revocation of one of them?

The problem with that argument is the nature of the corporate structure itself.

The corporation as an entity is nothing but a legal construct, a shell, consisting of and governed by its charter. There is a veil of separation between the people who own and/or run the corporation and the entity itself. That's what is meant by "limited liability" - the corporate veil. Once that veil is pierced and the individual and corporate merged, the most beneficial aspect of incorporation is generally lost.

So the entity is, legally and structurally, entirely separate from the people who, as you put it, "make up" the workings of the entity. That's why it needed the fiction of limited "personhood" in the first place. There had to be a legal precept in place in order for a piece of paper to designate agents and do things like own property and pay taxes. That does not make that piece of paper a citizen, nor does it make it an individual.

What projecting those individual rights onto the entity itself does is pierce the veil in one direction, for the benefit of the fictitious entity. But there is no piercing in the opposite direction for any accountability or responsibility to be placed on the individuals whose rights are being piggybacked.

The entity itself is still entirely separate. Yet now it speaks with the "voice" and using the individual rights of the people who serve it. That commingles the individual and the corporate. When the individuals who serve the entity were, are and have always been able to speak for themselves, to organize to do so, and to otherwise exercise their rights - only using their own voices, individual accountability and money, without the veil to hide behind and without piercing or weakening that veil by doing so.

The legal fiction on top of a legal fiction here is one thing, and bad enough. The weakening of the corporate structure itself by piercing the veil in order for the individuals who own and operate it to use its resources in exercise of their individual rights and agendas is another. It's not only bad for individuals, it's bad for the corporate entity as well.

The second excellent post on this thread goldcatt. I used the term 'hate' because of a pattern of recent threads on the board. Our founding fathers didn't 'hate' corporations, and they certainly didn't hate their seminal achievement...government either.

The first key word(s) to me is personal responsibility. Our founders didn't believe any 'entity' could shield an individual from that burden. And the second key word is 'privilege' ...our founding fathers believed wealth acquired from the citizens was a privilege, not a right. The citizens had to receive something constructive, and of equal value for their investment.

Citizens United v. FEC is the modern day Dred Scott v. Sandford except much more egregious. The stakeholders in Dred Scott v. Sandford were African Americans, the stakeholders in Citizens United v. FEC are the foundations of our democratic system.


"The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter."
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[Agit8r]

They didn't hate corporations per se. they despised out of control corporations that had influence over governments.

You have to recall what led up to the Revolution. officers of the East India Company influenced parliament to give them monopoly power over TEA and other trades in the American colonies, because the India Company was in trouble and was too big to fail.

This monopolism led to small merchants and workingmen dressing up in crude native american garb and tossing corporate property into Boston Harbor.

 

[martybegan]

The Founders didn't hate corporations so much as they didn't trust them, and they definitely wanted them divorced from the political process.

If they hated them, they would have banned them. That was not the case.

Corporations serve a purpose, and a valuable one. They aren't inherently evil, in fact they are a valuable tool that has been used to create a lot of wealth and innovation over time. Without the corporation we wouldn't be sitting here shooting the breeze on an internet forum about them.

The problem is when they step outside that purpose and start acting with the powers and rights of individuals, but none of an individual's accountability.

We're not yet to the point here in the U.S. where we were in colonial times, with sovereign corporations acting as de facto (and in many cases de jure) government, and hopefully we will never be. So the comparison isn't really apt. But corporations are certainly gaining more and more advantages over the individual as far as influence on government, and many see that as a problem. I see that as a problem.

Representational democracy is supposed to be for the benefit of the people to whom all rights are reserved, meaning individuals - not fictitious entities. Those entities should be entitled to limited rights related to their purpose, hence things like the century-old concept of "commercial speech", but they are not and should never be equal to natural persons much less referred to as "citizens".

And yes...by "corporation" I do mean all fictitious entities that fall under the broad umbrella, including non-profits and unions.

The all or nothing approach would probably be the one way to get around the first amendment issues that banning group speech, but still might not even work.

In the end all of these entities are really just groups of people. Shareholders in the case of a corporation, workers in the case of a union, people of like political goals in the case of a PAC. Given the rights to assembly and free speech, how does combining the two lead to the revocation of one of them?

The problem with that argument is the nature of the corporate structure itself.

The corporation as an entity is nothing but a legal construct, a shell, consisting of and governed by its charter. There is a veil of separation between the people who own and/or run the corporation and the entity itself. That's what is meant by "limited liability" - the corporate veil. Once that veil is pierced and the individual and corporate merged, the most beneficial aspect of incorporation is generally lost.

So the entity is, legally and structurally, entirely separate from the people who, as you put it, "make up" the workings of the entity. That's why it needed the fiction of limited "personhood" in the first place. There had to be a legal precept in place in order for a piece of paper to designate agents and do things like own property and pay taxes. That does not make that piece of paper a citizen, nor does it make it an individual.

What projecting those individual rights onto the entity itself does is pierce the veil in one direction, for the benefit of the fictitious entity. But there is no piercing in the opposite direction for any accountability or responsibility to be placed on the individuals whose rights are being piggybacked.

The entity itself is still entirely separate. Yet now it speaks with the "voice" and using the individual rights of the people who serve it. That commingles the individual and the corporate. When the individuals who serve the entity were, are and have always been able to speak for themselves, to organize to do so, and to otherwise exercise their rights - only using their own voices, individual accountability and money, without the veil to hide behind and without piercing or weakening that veil by doing so.

The legal fiction on top of a legal fiction here is one thing, and bad enough. The weakening of the corporate structure itself by piercing the veil in order for the individuals who own and operate it to use its resources in exercise of their individual rights and agendas is another. It's not only bad for individuals, it's bad for the corporate entity as well.

But what would be the difference between XY corporation spending money on an advertising campaign in its own name, and one of the principal officers of XY corporation taking that money out as compensation and then using it on his own for an advertising campaign?

The end result is still XY corporation getting its message out, except now it can hide it behind an individual, not from people in the know, but from people who just get thier info from TV 5 hours a day.

A better fix would be an end to the ability to name PAC's and advertising campaigns with misleading titles. If XY corporation wants to spend money on adverts supporting Candiate or position Z, require the XY Corporation logo in big freaking letters and a voice over every 10 seconds, THIS AD PAID BY XY CORPORATION. Get rid of the whole false naming of PAC's like one supported by unions calling itself "Organization of Working Families" or a corporate PAC calling itself " Concerned Citizens for Fair Buisness" would do far more good, and probably be easier, then trying to stop one form of assembly from entering the political process.

 

[goldcatt]

The all or nothing approach would probably be the one way to get around the first amendment issues that banning group speech, but still might not even work.

In the end all of these entities are really just groups of people. Shareholders in the case of a corporation, workers in the case of a union, people of like political goals in the case of a PAC. Given the rights to assembly and free speech, how does combining the two lead to the revocation of one of them?

The problem with that argument is the nature of the corporate structure itself.

The corporation as an entity is nothing but a legal construct, a shell, consisting of and governed by its charter. There is a veil of separation between the people who own and/or run the corporation and the entity itself. That's what is meant by "limited liability" - the corporate veil. Once that veil is pierced and the individual and corporate merged, the most beneficial aspect of incorporation is generally lost.

So the entity is, legally and structurally, entirely separate from the people who, as you put it, "make up" the workings of the entity. That's why it needed the fiction of limited "personhood" in the first place. There had to be a legal precept in place in order for a piece of paper to designate agents and do things like own property and pay taxes. That does not make that piece of paper a citizen, nor does it make it an individual.

What projecting those individual rights onto the entity itself does is pierce the veil in one direction, for the benefit of the fictitious entity. But there is no piercing in the opposite direction for any accountability or responsibility to be placed on the individuals whose rights are being piggybacked.

The entity itself is still entirely separate. Yet now it speaks with the "voice" and using the individual rights of the people who serve it. That commingles the individual and the corporate. When the individuals who serve the entity were, are and have always been able to speak for themselves, to organize to do so, and to otherwise exercise their rights - only using their own voices, individual accountability and money, without the veil to hide behind and without piercing or weakening that veil by doing so.

The legal fiction on top of a legal fiction here is one thing, and bad enough. The weakening of the corporate structure itself by piercing the veil in order for the individuals who own and operate it to use its resources in exercise of their individual rights and agendas is another. It's not only bad for individuals, it's bad for the corporate entity as well.

But what would be the difference between XY corporation spending money on an advertising campaign in its own name, and one of the principal officers of XY corporation taking that money out as compensation and then using it on his own for an advertising campaign?

The end result is still XY corporation getting its message out, except now it can hide it behind an individual, not from people in the know, but from people who just get thier info from TV 5 hours a day.

A better fix would be an end to the ability to name PAC's and advertising campaigns with misleading titles. If XY corporation wants to spend money on adverts supporting Candiate or position Z, require the XY Corporation logo in big freaking letters and a voice over every 10 seconds, THIS AD PAID BY XY CORPORATION. Get rid of the whole false naming of PAC's like one supported by unions calling itself "Organization of Working Families" or a corporate PAC calling itself " Concerned Citizens for Fair Buisness" would do far more good, and probably be easier, then trying to stop one form of assembly from entering the political process.

The difference is the individual using his own money, compensation for his work, in his own name and own voice and with personal accountability for his actions.

That same person making the same statement using corporate funds and the corporate name has only the accountability of a piece of paper. Nationality rules, reporting requirements, even if needed the ability to bring criminal charges for wrongdoing...all vanished. That's the difference. The corporation has virtual impunity, the individual does not.

You're also assuming we're only speaking of large, well-known multinational corporations here. In fact, the vast majority of corporations are small, one owner or closely held sub-S corporations. All anybody, anywhere in the world needs to have one of those at their disposal is a couple hundred dollars, a form to fill out that can usually be printed from a website and a P.O. Box somewhere on U.S. soil with somebody paid a ten spot to check it once a month. Voila! They now own and control a U.S. citizen, with full political speech rights. That sub-S has the same political rights as a Wal-Mart or SEIU, but without the public transparency or oversight.

The possibilities for abuse here are endless. Why? Because the corporate entity and the law of corporations was never designed or intended for political participation. That is not their purpose.

 

[kaz]

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society...

Were you jerking off when you wrote this?