Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress

[Mach]

Just when you thought you'd seen it all.......

http://murrayhillweb.com/company/company.html

Murray Hill, Inc. is a Maryland public relations and advertising firm that announced at the end of January, 2010 that it intends to run for office as a Republican in Maryland's 8th Congressional District. The company announced its candidacy shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark January, 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case that corporations have the same political and free-speech rights as U.S. citizens. Murray Hill, Inc., is selling mugs and T-Shirts with the political slogan, "Corporations are people, too!"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

YouTube - Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA)

[evilfunnystuff]

lol i wonder if they are actualy going to file

[Aratus]

if they do, most likely they will have their chairman of the board and their board
of directors sit in the seat in the u.s house of representatives, they have to have
thought through the rotation whereby each person who is legally part of this newly
dubbed "individual" is given the ability to speechify gloriously & grandly in due tyme!!!

[erowe1]

Is Murray Hill, Inc. a U.S. citizen for at least the past 7 years and at least 25 years of age?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[Aratus]

erowe1 ------ they may statistically average out to this!
this may make them all quite legal and able to aggragately run!
otherwise, their people who are below 25 years & are only foreign born
may have to go part-time & not corporate in full! this does have an added vigorish!

[erowe1]

this may make them all quite legal and able to aggragately run!


No, it won't. There's no maybe about it.

[Aratus]

hense we have a further supreme court case...

[erowe1]

hense we have a further supreme court case...

Nope. The Supreme Court won't waste its time on something as frivolous and obvious as this.

[Aratus]

seriously! how does a corporate "individual' voice this "free speech" if the same said
individual is not totally hobbes leviathan and owns its members? where is the artful fine
line between the free speech of an employee and what the corporate entity wants & needs?

[haaaylee]

Is Murray Hill, Inc. a U.S. citizen for at least the past 7 years and at least 25 years of age?


Ha!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Murray-Hill-Inc-for-Congress/314963396608?ref=search&sid=1142349892.780307729..1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/murray-hill-pr-firm-plans_n_441094.html

[Aratus]

i was and am seriously thinking thru the logistics if they all tried as a legal entity
to sit in maryland's 8th cong. dist. seat en masse so as to voice wisdoms en masse!

[Aratus]

my point is, what if they "all" WIN the election? like what does the opposing party do?

[erowe1]

i was and am seriously thinking thru the logistics if they all tried as a legal entity
to sit in maryland's 8th cong. dist. seat en masse so as to voice wisdoms en masse!

While you're at it, see if you can spare a few moments to consider how many angels can sit on the head of a pin and the logistics of how they would do that as well.

[Aratus]

if the rEVOLUTIOn moneybombs for MURRAY HILL INc. as the same said INDIVIDUAL runs for office...
mayhap could have the national mass media press NOTICING one of our lesser but wittier moneybombs...

[Aratus]

While you're at it, see if you can spare
a few moments to consider how many angels
can sit on the head of a pin and the logistics
of how they would do that as well.

angels were part of our colonial and pre-civil war law code.
they were legal entities. its only a mass media press feeding
frenzy that has us doubting william jennings bryan. seriously put
lets not drag darwin and darrow into the issue as to how angelic or
of an angelic ancestry the aggragate solitary "INDIVIDUAL" actually is
since we know the hill peoples of the appalacians view most politicians as
being part skunk at times & can be overheard saying this even to total strangers!

[Aratus]

i am still wondering if this firm has the beginings of a brilliant idea, all told...

[Mach]

i am still wondering if this firm has the beginings of a brilliant idea, all told...

Ron Paul Corporation?

Stockholder: Aratus

RonPaulForums: Subsidiary

Hmmmm...... :D

[Aratus]

imagine the "individual" senator being asked to merrily filibuster!
also, imagine the "individual" senator being "seated" & physically sitting
in the senate! the possibilities are endless and quite creative!!!

[Aratus]

Ron Paul Corporation?

Stockholder: Aratus

RonPaulForums: Subsidiary

Hmmmm...... :D

if i incorporate myself, or we incorporate ourselves,
and position ourselves so as to draw mitch mcconnell's
and jim demint's notice, as we debate how to get ourselves a
senate seat as we all be totally "INDIVIDUAL" via the new definition...

[__27__]

Beyond the silliness of it all, imagine the possibility for endless filibusters. Each share holding person in the company could take their turn at the mic, essentially they could hold a filibuster in perpetuity! I'm starting to like the idea, the less government does, the more free I am. If every bill were in perpetual filibuster NOTHING would get done!!

[Aratus]

we KNOW any sitting Democrat in a senate race would go litigous if they don't cleanly win!!!
the whole idea easily could go ALL THE WAY up to the supreme court! senators can often filibuster...

[Alawn]

This is stupid.



Founded in 2005, Murray Hill Inc. is a progressive firm that works hard and smart to make sure our clients get the support they need. Murray Hill partners share the same values with our clients. Our goal is to work on meaningful, creative and challenging campaigns that will also let us get a good night's sleep.

It is not 25 years old so it is ineligible even if it could run. Plus I doubt it counts as a US citizen either even if it is a considered a person.

[CoreyBowen999]

why do I remember some Supreme Court case during the 1890's that said Corporations had the same rights as citizens..? I just learned something like this in US history like three weeks ago. Maybe that has sense been overturned though

[Aratus]

Just when you thought you'd seen it all.......

http://murrayhillweb.com/company/company.html

Murray Hill, Inc. is a Maryland public relations and advertising firm that announced at the end of January, 2010 that it intends to run for office as a Republican in Maryland's 8th Congressional District. The company announced its candidacy shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark January, 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case that corporations have the same political and free-speech rights as U.S. citizens. Murray Hill, Inc., is selling mugs and T-Shirts with the political slogan, "Corporations are people, too!"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

YouTube - Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA)

if corporation = individual ... legally & politically!!!

[Aratus]

in the 1890s, prior to some TR trust busting, everything corporate is thought to be quite individual!!!
oh one & all, please do guess what happens way back then to the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments...
if the roberts court is trying to legally erase the 20th century via his four colleagues, i have a potentiality!

[Elwar]

Corporations should not have personhood.

They've basically created an American super-human that is immortal with no physical impact if it goes bankrupt.

Us mere mortals cannot compete with such entities.

[Minlawc]

I have no problem with this. We've already got Goldman Sachs in the White House.

[angelatc]

why do I remember some Supreme Court case during the 1890's that said Corporations had the same rights as citizens..? I just learned something like this in US history like three weeks ago. Maybe that has sense been overturned though

Corey, if you're interested you should Google that. There is actually some speculation that the Court did not actually even say that. Some hold that it was a comment added by a clerk in the preparation of the transcript, but I'm not really familiar enough with it to give you much more than that.

Recently the Court overturned a restriction of the rights of corporations to speak during elections. There are a lot of people blowing it all out of proportion. The fact that the restrictions existed is evidence that the right existed. The whole thing was about a corporation that wanted to air an anti-Hillary movie during some random period of time immediately preceding an election. The court went farther, saying that not only that the prohibition on the movie was illegal, corporations should be able to state their case on the media airwaves as well. They still can't contribute to campaigns.


What seemed to me to be a major factor in swaying the Court was the affirmative answer to the question,"Could this limitation be extended to books?"

The law actually exempted certain corporations - basically meaning that some corporations had more rights than others. That's what the judges found unconstitutional, and in fact, all 9 judges agreed that the right existed. They only disagreed on whether it was ok to take it away from certain entities.

There are several states that hava no prohibition on corporate spending during elections at the state level, and nobody is asserting that the corporations own those states as a result.

It's sad to see so many people disapprove of a ruling that was actually in favor of of freedom.

This "corporation running for Senate" is just demagoguery.

[sratiug]

Corey, if you're interested you should Google that. There is actually some speculation that the Court did not actually even say that. Some hold that it was a comment added by a clerk in the preparation of the transcript, but I'm not really familiar enough with it to give you much more than that.

Recently the Court overturned a restriction of the rights of corporations to speak during elections. There are a lot of people blowing it all out of proportion. The fact that the restrictions existed is evidence that the right existed. The whole thing was about a corporation that wanted to air an anti-Hillary movie during some random period of time immediately preceding an election. The court went farther, saying that not only that the prohibition on the movie was illegal, corporations should be able to state their case on the media airwaves as well. They still can't contribute to campaigns.


What seemed to me to be a major factor in swaying the Court was the affirmative answer to the question,"Could this limitation be extended to books?"

The law actually exempted certain corporations - basically meaning that some corporations had more rights than others. That's what the judges found unconstitutional, and in fact, all 9 judges agreed that the right existed. They only disagreed on whether it was ok to take it away from certain entities.

There are several states that hava no prohibition on corporate spending during elections at the state level, and nobody is asserting that the corporations own those states as a result.

It's sad to see so many people disapprove of a ruling that was actually in favor of of freedom.

This "corporation running for Senate" is just demagoguery.

No, this is an unconstitutional ruling. The constitution does not recognize corporations at all. That is quite logical since British corporations were a major cause of the revolutionary war. The word is not in the constitution so there are no federal corporations, there are only state and foreign corporations. A state has the right to limit activities of foreign corporations and to regulate their own corporations in any way they see fit.

[Aratus]

kentuck*bill... this is a valid idearrr

kentuck*bill... thee hath a business???

kentuck*bill... sorta hint at this to trey Geee

kentuck*bill... lets face it, you izz trey's better half!

kentuck*bill... we KNOW you izzz a tag-team sorta guy...

[FrankRep]

Corporations should not have personhood.

Yeah. Where in the Constitution does it allow Corporations (aka: artificial personhood)?

[Aratus]

the idea of a corporation having "individual' free speech opens an old late 1800s doorway most adroitly legal!

[FrankRep]

The 14th Amendment and Artificial Personhood

How Stuff Works

http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

[Aratus]

me, myself and i could incorporate by my very lonesome...
i could also get totally in tandem with the idea of a partner!
or if i get more legally indivualistically three-way or 4-way, it
sure gives me a way to tag-team during any upcoming debate.

[Aratus]

is MURRAY HILL Inc. still serious about a congress run?

[NYgs23]

No, this is an unconstitutional ruling. The constitution does not recognize corporations at all. That is quite logical since British corporations were a major cause of the revolutionary war. The word is not in the constitution so there are no federal corporations, there are only state and foreign corporations. A state has the right to limit activities of foreign corporations and to regulate their own corporations in any way they see fit.

What we're talking about is the freedom of individuals who are organized into a corporation to spend their own money (property) freely. Why should individuals who have grouped themselves into a corporation lose the right to spend their money on political advertising? It's true that corporations receive governmental benefits from government that they shouldn't but it's a myth that corporations, as an organizing structure, could not exist without government. And in any case that has nothing to do with their right to purchase advertising. Public employees could not exist without the state and yet even they can spend their money, which they receive from the taxpayers, on political advertising.

[Elle]

check hot topics. we are all corporations.

[Bern]

is MURRAY HILL Inc. still serious about a congress run?

Not sure if they are serious or not, but they are still pursuing it:


The campaign of the first corporation to run for Congress has shaken the political establishment across state and party lines. In the latest development, the Maryland State Board of Elections rejected Murray Hill Inc's application to register as a Republican in Montgomery County, so that the corporation can run in the party primary for Congress in Maryland's 8th Congressional District.

On Wednesday, March 24, at 12:30 PM, Murray Hill Inc will formally appeal this ruling by submitting a request to the Maryland State Board of Elections, 151 West Street, Suite 200, Annapolis MD. The corporation's "astroturf" supporters are expected to be on hand as Designated Human Eric Hensal and Campaign Manager William Klein file the appeal.

In its letter to the Board of Elections, Murray Hill Inc. states:

"In January 2010, Murray Hill Incorporated applied for voter registration in Montgomery County. On March 10, 2010, Voter Registration Division Director Ms. Mary Cramer Wagner ordered the Montgomery County Board of Elections to not process our application to vote. Ms. Wagner asserted that 'A corporation “designating” a human does not meet the qualifications to register.'”

"Her direction to the Montgomery County Board of Elections rests on the implied notion that only a “bodied” person may vote and she fails to address the core issue—corporations have a right to vote and run for office, based on the expansion of First Amendment rights defined by the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U. S. ____ (2010).

"Our decision to register Murray Hill Incorporated resulted from our review of Citizens United. In our opinion, the First Amendment rights extended to corporations brought civil rights law to a point where a corporation, as a corporate person, must be allowed to vote and hold public office. Even in dissent, Justice Stevens recognized a right for corporations to vote under the majority's decision, saying “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
...

http://www.murrayhillincforcongress.blogspot.com/

[Aratus]

is MURRAY HILL Inc. still serious about a congress run?

should i rhetorically answer my own ancient posting? herman cain tends to borrow ideas...

[MikeStanart]

Why are you bumping every thread about this?

[mojobo]

Ironically this is my district and I hope Mr. Murray Hill Inc wins the election (the guy in our district is on the super committee too. Fun district to live in I guess)

[Aratus]

the california activist with paperwork in a carpool lane has a curious take on this all...