Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered

The Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are persons and money is speech, so it was only a matter of time before a company decided to exercise its Constitutional right to run for Congress.

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. “Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.” Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.

“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. said, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” Murray Hill Inc. added: “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.” Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an “emerging new market.”

The announcement represents a landmark moment in American politics, as former President George W. Bush’s dream of an “ownership society” is finally realized. Still, important questions remain for the candidate. For instance:

  • How will Murray Hill go about modernizing the nation’s antiquated system of “elections.” Surely there’s a more efficient way of generating broad consensus, and citizens shareholders will be looking to emerging politicorporate leaders to quickly craft best-of-breed solutions to maximize return and lower total cost of ownership going forward.
  • Is it safe to assume that under-performing sectors of the country will be spun off or sold? (Specifically, it’s anticipated that Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas will come in for much-needed scrutiny.)
  • What role will outsourcing play in bureaucratic reform? Certainly business units like Health & Human Services and Interior could be managed more cost-effectively in Bangalore.
  • Opposition to corporate/government merger and acquisition activity remains and buy-in will be needed from significant segments of the marketplace. However, Murray Hill has so far presented no marketecture for how it will capture sufficient mindshare to ensure the campaign’s success.
  • What strategies will be employed to insulate United States of America, Inc. against hostile takeovers by international competitors?
  • What does the company see as its key differentiators with respect to competitors in the crowded “governance” space?

It’s still early in the game, of course, but investors will be anxiously awaiting as Murray Hill’s brand group crafts a mission statement and works to socialize its unique value proposition among key stakeholders.

55 comments on “Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered

  1. Yeah, it’s a joke…now. Just give it a few years. We’ll google up this article and weep in hindsight at the attempted humour.

  2. The corporations do not have to get on the supreme court, they are already there:
    their names are Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy -the 5 horsemen of the apocalypse.

  3. Sad thing is that we are only one person away from that as it was BEFORE this verdict. I just find it incredible that even those with dollar signs for eyes think that this is anything but a sell out of the CITIZENS of this country (remember US?). Now, there is nothing standing in the way of any corporation doing exactly this. After all, if corporations ARE people (a stupid idea if there ever was one), then why can’t they run for office?

    John Roberts needs to be impeached IMMEDIATELY for lying on the stand when he was being confirmed. But then, he’s just dong what the righties KNEW he would do, and it’s exactly what THEY want. They hold all the money, why shouldn’t they want to use it to get everything else for themselves, too? They have shown us where their priorities are, it’s time we show them where OURS are.

    Impeach John Roberts, remove corporate personhood from existence, and take this country back for HUMANS, damn it. It’s SUPPOSED to be OUR country, not owned by the highest bidder.

  4. If a company is incorporated in the United States, say in the state of Delaware, and that incorporation occurred more than 35 years ago, can it run for president?

  5. Isn’t this what our process really is today?

    Will the great Senator of Monsanto please rise?

    At lease we would be closer to the truth of the matter.

  6. I love good humor and a good joke … but the 5-4 decision is no joke.

    We are about to OBE (Overcome By Events) that We, the People cannot stop.

    I am not one to cry wolf but when the wolves are at every door, window, on the roof and in the basement working themselves upstairs, well… perhaps a cry would help. But, a cry to whom? The people? Congress? We are powerless … the 5-4 crowd proves that.

  7. I want to start a corporation, write a business plan and seek funding and shareholders for the purpose of it running for public office. But Dr. Denny makes a point about it needing to be 35 years old. I know, I’ll find an old bankrupt corporation to buy, and have it run for office. It’ll be just like a real politician.

  8. If corporations are people too, why aren’t they arrested for illegal activity? Law allows for the first three officers to be held accountable…banksters, ect.

  9. This was the first thing I thought of when I heard of the nutty SCOTUS ruling. The only reguirements for the Senate are:
    1. You have to be 30 years old
    2. You have to be a citizen for 9 years
    3. You have to live in the state.

    It will happen under this ruling. We will have open corporate governence and the corps will convince gullible red staters its in their best interest. The best thing we could do is to beat them to the punch and run our own corporare entity to point out how bad this is. I nominate the ACLU for Senate. I would assume they have been incorporated for more than 30 years.

  10. What Dan Francis said. However, you are mistaken that we don’t have any power to stop it. We still have the 2nd Amendment, for very good reason. A lot of people got blasted over the years for staunchly refusing to give in on that one, but so far they have prevailed. The “lefties” will be thanking those mostly “righties” when it all comes to a head.

    And it will.

  11. Pingback: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain

  12. Good luck with that Frumpy. Please let us know how your personal arsenal held out against the US military. Those drones won’t bother you much, will they?

    If our friends on the right really believed that crime goes way down when the people on the street are known to be well armed then why have they not given guns to the homeless yet?

    The folks who lived in fear of somebody taking their guns were big supporters Roberts and Alito. Now that the global corporations get to run our government, do you think that ARAMCO, Toyota and China Overseas will let you keep the guns?

  13. Does this also mean that I can marry a corp? Or that corps could marry other corps? Do we need to designate them as male and female so we don’t have Same-Sector Marriage? It will only lead to corp polygamy and corp pedophillia!

  14. They have my vote for the same price they gave the 5 Supreme Court Justices to pass the illegal Law. Greed and corruption is what the US now stands for after being trained by the Bush Administration for 8 years.

  15. @Dr. Denny – That sounds right, but ONLY IF it was incorporated in the good ol’ US of A. The President must be native born, unlike our current, socialist, secret Muslim, Wall Street-loving chief executive.

    I suspect he’s picking up communist-friendly radio waves on those massive ears of his. Also God

  16. I’d like to know how a corporation can vote in Congress? When a real person is elected only s/he can vote. Not their aids, nor their spouse. Only the person elected can vote. If the elected “person” is the one that is to vote and there is not physical being, then it seems that the vote for that district/state could not be done.
    Who from the corporation would attend committee meetings? Who would get to speak on the floor of the chamber?
    If non-living beings can be elected, I nominate George Washington for president in 2012. We need a president with a spine who will be respected by all.

    Also if having more guns means a safer community then Mogadishu Somalia should be one of the safest places on earth.

  17. @SCOTUS-SCREWEDUS, January 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    Do you really think that the upper echelon will allow the lower boys to fire on possibly their sisters, mothers fathers bros ETC.?

  18. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  19. Scotus-Screwedus, are you saying that all homeless people are thieves? Or what are you saying? I’m not sure because your comment is a nonsequitur wrapped in a strawman smothered in oxymoron.

    It might come as a shock to you, but there are some people, neither in the “left” nor the “right” camp, who believe in the inherent right to own firearms. They are generally people who have a firm grasp of history. Perhaps you should honor Mr. Zinn on this unfortunate day of his leaving us by cracking open A People’s History and acquiring an understanding as to why the founders of this country saw it imperative to place the right to bear arms (the 2nd Amendment) right behind the right to express oneself freely (the 1st).

    With the 2nd, you won’t have the 1st.

  20. Many corporations have mascots.

    So, one day will we see Ronald McDonald sitting in either the House or Senate? The Colonel? The Geiko gecko? What about a corporate mascot in the White House? Oh, wait, that would have already been George W. Bush and Dick Cheney…corporate mascots.

  21. Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  22. ummmm, this is hilarious. its also so sad that it can be mistaken for true.

    in all honesty, this has been the state of our country for far too long, at least the latest supreme court ruling has made it clear what actually happens in washington.

    i, for one, am ready to be active about this. the docle masses can sit back no longer. we need to do something to take back our country.

    these peeps are trying to amend the consititution and have collected over 50,000 others that wnat to help. there are days of action in the works, resources to help organize in your area and a nation wide network to tap into. give it a look:

    http://movetoamend.org/

  23. To vote, the Corp will just spread money around to the Congressmen and Senators as they do now.
    Since corporations can legally own other corporations, we now have condoned slavery. A hostile takeover of another corporation could be rape. It goes on and on.

  24. Seriously. . . .

    Doesn’t the $=Free Speech violate the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments? If one’s right to free speech is limited by one’s (lack of) wealth, then how can anyone argue that we have free speech?

    Traffic laws are not based (legally, in writing anyway) on the size of your car. You don’t get to legally drive faster if you have a Mercedes or a big honkin’ truck (some of those people just act like they do).

    • I think the operational answer to that question is that free speech is a minimal standard, period. If you can say “fuck the president” without going to jail, that’s a minimal standard, and nothing in the Constitution was ever intended to be construed as fair or equal.

      Now, I’m not sure that’s how I’d do things if I had a magic wand, but that seems to be how our betters see it.

  25. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

    Great, we can have VP Timken Company (they’re right across the street from each other a couple of miles from where I grew up)

  26. Sorry, my reply got a little cut off due to technical difficulties. That was supposed to be God is > or = Glenn Beck, but the actual > or = symbol is misbehaving.

    And be warned, all my nefarious naysayers, I have a elastic belt in Martial Arts and Crafts. It used to be leather, but I kind of let myself go, so I like the freedom the elastic gives me.

  27. Pingback: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered : Federal Jack

  28. Pingback: Corporation files to run for Congress | We Are Change Utah

  29. Pingback: Tweets that mention Scholars and Rogues » Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered -- Topsy.com

  30. Pingback: So what do you think about this?

  31. I’d like to see them run. After all, corporations are people. I’d donate and if they were a California Corp., I’d vote for them. I’m buying their stuff now and I hope you do too. It’s time to take this to the extreme and force our lawmakers to either do the right thing or look crazy.

  32. There’s nothing actually new about this court decision.
    Corporations have already been running the government for decades.

    The federal government is a corporation. So is every city, county and state government. The fed reserve,both political parties (dem & rep), and the Dept of Defense. And many many more….

    So what is the difference if a corporation promotes, backs, and uses its connections, influence, and money to get a person elected to speak for them and do their bidding as compared to a corp running for office and requiring a person to speak for them and do their bidding?
    Nothing’s different. They are in essence the exact same situation.

    So why do you like the one, and pretend to oppose the other?

    When a candidate openly proclaims they are a democrat or a republican they are directly telling you to your face they work for the benefit of that (democrat or republican) corporation. And they do not represent you and any other real people. This has been going on for a long time and you have really enjoyed it….don’t stop pretending now just cause it is being done out in the light of day.

    You are owned by corporations, without them you would simply die. They make everything you have and want to have. They keep you alive, feed you, clothe you, shelter you, entertain you, and every other thing you can imagine. You depend on them more than a new born child depends on its mother.
    They should get some reward other than your pitiful labor.
    They shouldn’t be satisfied with just getting the corporation elected to an office they already control.

    They should get to openly buy and sell their property, and that means you.

  33. Dr. Denny,
    You can easily verify every fact presented in my previous comment.
    I apologize that the comment didn’t come with a bibliography sheet containing active html links for you to click.
    Be couragous and go look it up….you’ll find the comment very honest, accurate, currently occurring, and purely factual.

    Most organizations now have websites.
    You won’t even have to get out of that corporate built chair you’re sitting in.

    Also simply look around your house and search for the items that you have that were made by and were not made by corporations. You’ll soon find the facts all around you.

    And as for the candidates you can easily find their voting records plus the legislation they introduced and supported. It is quite obvious and unfortunate for Americans quite factual they are not working for the real people. Or even easier just look at some of the unconstitutional laws currently on the books. It only takes one bad law to prove the entire point.
    And as a side note: is it not curious to you that out of more than a hundred million people the only elected ones are from two organizations. It is far less uncommon for an elected person to hold any view point othe than those two organizations.

    Dr. Denny…go try and prove the comment false.
    And when you realize it isn’t a satire, sarcastic, or silly rambling…why not join in and start trying to correct the horrible situation we’re in today….We the people of America are really in need of the help.

    • Statesman: The issue isn’t whether your position is false or true – we may agree with you completely. The issue is that saying it ain’t demonstrating it and it ain’t proving it.

      Denny made his point with lots of evidence, as he always does. It is not his job to prove or disprove your point. That’d be your job.

      We trade in fact, in evidence, and in analysis around here, to the extent that it’s possible. We prefer commenters who bring that same ethic to the table.

  34. CS: I did not seek to prove or disprove your screed. Here we expect commenters to back up their opinions, not leave it to the readers to do that for them. You may well be right. But we’re from Missouri: Show us, don’t tell us.

  35. I have commented on the facts you can either reject them or accept them. You must choose. If you are skeptical though it’s not my responsibility to rid you of that condition. It’s yours!

    But something tells me you don’t actually want to accept what was presented.
    If you did really want to learn the truth you would have been more than anxious to go find it for yourself….wild horses couldn’t have held you back. And you would have never responded to my original post with anything that even had an inkling of anything that might even possibly discredit it. Instead you would have been presenting facts in the follow-ups that supported it and showed the evidence you say you require before you believe.

    But alas you have not done that.

    • Statesman: do us a favor. Go look up the word “fact.” Note that it’s different from the definition for “unsubstantiated blather.”

      But something tells me you don’t actually want to accept what was presented.

      Something tells me you haven’t read much S&R. Hint: mouth/mind = cart/horse.

  36. CorporateStatesman

    Well, sorry but what is said is true, you are confusing (or attempting to confuse for the reader) your opinion with the facts.
    Here’s a rhetorical ploy and although you supplied what you purport to be the *only* answer, I’ll supply one for your question that, I feel, is more realistic.
    “So what is the difference…?”

    The difference is the voter. As bad as things are, some activities are held back by popular opinion, expressed in elections (as rigged sometimes as they are, they can not cover a very large discrepancy between actual and managed counts).

    Advertising works. The more money you can use for it, the more people you will pick up in whatever campaign you are doing. Sane, thoughtful people won’t fall for it but you will motivate *more* people and *perhaps* sway elections. You are–and you know this so I don’t know why in the gods green earth you are arguing other–money talks. You see it’s corrupting influence because YOU write of it. More is more, to use the tautology you seem to need hit with for some reason I can’t fathom!

    As we are seeing in the health care debate, even fettered, there is enough money to convince many sane people of absurd things such as “death panels,” or some “Stalinist take over.” That’s bad, that’s effective in this case but they (insurance companies) didn’t win it all. Perhaps 10% more allowable spending on ads for *their* people would have made for a certain win for them. Don’t you get that? More means “more.” What’s you’re dang problem?

  37. Allen: Interesting response but you are a little off the point. This isn’t that corporations are violating the practice of ‘separation of Church and State’ externally through monetary contributions, lobbying, advertising, etc. As you stated that occurs, people in general seem aware of it and strangely enough quite comfortable with it. But money and external influence isn’t quite the issue here. It’s gone beyond that.

    This is directed at the foundational condition that corporations are actually violating this separation practice internally and have been for quite awhile. This is what MHill is putting forth, no longer just be an external influence but now be an internal one. The irony is that this has already occurring for many years.

    The dem and rep political parties are sets of corporations. They have been selecting who they want to speak for them in Congress for a very long time. The candidate isn’t selected by the people; they are selected by the corporate party. They receive money, education, and support from the party incorporated. They do the corporation’s bidding or they are not re-elected. Kind of sounds like the original post doesn’t it, that’s because it is.

    So the question becomes what’s the difference for the voters to vote for a human corporate ( political party) representative promoting the platform and position of the underlying corporation….and a human corporate (corporation that’s not a political party) representative promoting the platform and position of the underlying corporation?

    The answer is none.

    Both ways a corporation to a large degree, if not completely, controls & directs the words and actions of an actual person and that actual person does the speaking/bidding in Congress on behalf of their supporting corporation.

    As an extra:
    I do find it odd, as any sane person would, that there is even a debate by the elected representatives in Congress about whether or not socialism should be used by the government of a Constitutional Republic as the means to do anything? Very odd indeed!

  38. Slammy: I went and bought a dictionary today and looked up the word ‘fact’….and it supported the way I used the term. And that’s a fact….laughing Not that you would actually knowone when confronted with it, since every statement you have made is personal opinion, not substantiated (except in your own personal opinion), and bordering on an attack of my character. That’s very poor conduct on your part Slammy.

    However you can redeem yourself; since the term ‘fact’ was indeed used correctly you should reimburse me for the cost of the book (Just send $45 US to the local Baptist church…you can even deduct it on your taxes).

    Nice chatting with you Slammy.

Leave us a reply. All replies are moderated according to our Comment Policy (see "About S&R")

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s