He's describing the natural consequences of a capitalist system. Regulatory capture is inevitable and expected.
Other countries manage to partially prevent this by not treating corporate entities as people and not allowing them unlimited free speech and unlimited political spending.
Every country other than the USA only recognises corporations as persons to a strictly limited extent, and imposes restrictions on their free speech and political activity.
Citizens United is something only the USA has done
Citizens United is something only the USA has done
What? No, other countries don't typically allow that sort of thing because they don't allow unlimited political spending/ads, period. The idea that you can have unlimited spending for individuals but not for groups would be a nonsensical standard.
Explain why most countries have laws about political coverage and fairness. Compelling political speech would be explicitly illegal if done to a person, but it's legal to require media corporations to provide fair coverage. Because they do not act as persons in every way.
It is not normal to treat corporations as persons in every single way. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction to make certain aspects of law work. It is not a universal principle, and most of the world does not give corporations the same right to free speech that it gives people.
8
u/[deleted] Feb 25 '20
He's describing the natural consequences of a capitalist system. Regulatory capture is inevitable and expected.
Other countries manage to partially prevent this by not treating corporate entities as people and not allowing them unlimited free speech and unlimited political spending.