Company dispenses with lobbyists and launches bid for Congressional seat

March 15, 2010


Murray Hill is running for Congress to rid Washington of lobbyists and weak-kneed politicians once and for all. And there may be no better candidate, for Murray Hill is not a frail human being but a company.

“Until now, 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,” the public relations firm from Silver Spring, Maryland, says in a statement.

It’s referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which has drawn a torrent of criticism from officials including President Barack Obama by treating corporations as human beings when it comes to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. Critics claim the decision will unleash a new flood of corporate money into U.S. election campaigns, including money from foreign companies.

But Murray Hill Inc., whose clients include labor unions and environmental groups, praises the Supreme Court for creating a new “growth market” in American politics and vows to make a top-dollar investment toward becoming the first “corporate person” in Congress.

It’s launched a campaign Web site, a YouTube ad that has drawn over 172,000 hits and a Facebook page with more than 2,600 fans. It even has a “designated human” to warm its seat in Congress and mind its legislative interests between board meetings.  

“Corporations now have all the rights the Founding Fathers meant for us,” the YouTube ad says. “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it and we’re going to keep it.”

Murray Hill Inc. is seeking to enter the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District, currently represented by Democrat Chris Van Hollen. Van Hollen is this year’s chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a leading critic of the Supreme Court ruling.

But for all it’s determination to use the latest tools of political ascendancy — automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote — Murray Hill Inc.’s candidacy may prove to be little more than a clever publicity stunt to satirize the court’s decision and promote its own business.OBAMA/

Election officials in Maryland have rejected the company’s voter registration application, saying it fails to meet minimum standards that require the applicant to be at least 18 years of age and a U.S. citizen. The company was founded in 2005.

Murray Hill Inc.’s president and designated human, Eric Hensal, suggests the age requirement should not apply to companies, telling The Washington Post: “It’s not as if, when a corporation turns 21, it can buy beer.”

Photo Credits: Reuters/Jim Young (U.S. supreme Court justices); Reuters/ Larry Downing (U.S. Capitol Dome)

Click here for more political coverage from Reuters


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

And so it begins. When corporations have direct access to forging the laws of the land, those laws will be necessarily convenient for corporate people but not for actual people.

Corporations will craft the laws that individual citizens must live by. A corporate legislator will be the first chain around the collective neck of of the people. Corporate legislation will choke out every civil freedom until people are regarded as nothing more than commodities. The citizenry had better speak loudly and clearly on this subject. Silence on this issue will only purchase slavery and the slavery of our children.

Posted by Benny_Acosta | Report as abusive

This is a joke right? Please someone tell me this is a joke.

Posted by iflydaplanes | Report as abusive

Not a joke. Nope, not even close.

Posted by uunnnggghhhh | Report as abusive

[…] But Murray Hill Inc., whose clients include labor unions and environmental groups, praises the Supreme Court for creating a new “growth market” in American politics and vows to make a top-dollar investment toward becoming the first “corporate person” in Congress. [for remainder of article see Reuters] […]

Posted by A Corporation Running for Congressional Seat? « ON MY WATCH – the writings of SamHenry | Report as abusive

Damn, I was hoping. Oh well so it’s gonna be The United States of America, brought to you by Widgets and Gizmos Inc.

I love the quote though from Eric Hensal:
“It’s not as if, when the corporation turns 21, it can but beer”

Yeah not kidding genious, that’s because the corporation is not a person!!! What can we do to pound that into the Supreme Court Justices heads????

Posted by iflydaplanes | Report as abusive

These guys should be taken out back behind the woodshed…

Posted by STORY-BURN | Report as abusive

This whole criticize the Supreme Court at the SOTU speech by Obama is just setting the state when and if health care passes and the constitutionality of it will be debated at the SC.

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

Corporations have been the real government since the Reagan administration. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is just an acknowlegement from the courts that the corporate takeover of the US is now a matter of settled law. Welcome to the Serfdom.

Posted by Yellow105 | Report as abusive

People had better start hammering congress on this or there will come a time when there will be no right to complain.

Posted by Benny_Acosta | Report as abusive

Don’t worry Benny, if health care is passed by the democrats we will all be subjected to control of our lives. However, hopefully if this debacle of a health care plan is rammed through, there will be plenty of constitutional challenges and it can be thrown out.

We need health care reform, but the huge majority of Americans do not want this health care reform.

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

That’s bacause it lacks the public option

Posted by Yellow105 | Report as abusive

The American people never wanted this health care fiasco, even with the pubic option. Rasmussen has shown this throughout this debate, even when the public option was front and center.

No way, no how, no public option. That’s the view of the American people.

It would be nice for you to offer facts to back up your snitty little meaningless comments. But I don’t think you are capable of it.

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

I just spent the last half hour looking at those “polls”.
Most polls show around 50% in favor of a public option, with around 48% opposed.
Rasmussen polls 42% in favor, and 48% opposed.
It’s not exactly a majority opposed. Average Rasmussen’s polls into the total of all polls, and you still get a small majority in favor.

Posted by Liberaltarian | Report as abusive

As I said, Rasmussen has reported Americans are not in favor of any health care plan this president and this congress propose, public option or not. That goes all the way back to Jul 2009.

I must say though, I would have to say a majority is 48 percent if you are using that against 42 percent. Of course, that would mean there are 10 percent in those polls undecided, but I think you would find people are not in favor of any plan as reported by Rasmussen. But don’t take my word for it, here is every Rasmussen health care poll taken since Jun 2009:

Date Favor Oppose
Mar 13-14 43% 53%
Mar 5-6 42% 53%
Feb 27-28 44% 52%
Feb 21-22 41% 56%
Feb 9-10 39% 58%
Jan 20-21 40% 58%
Jan 16-17 38% 56%
Jan 8-9 40% 55%
Jan 3 42% 52%
Dec 29 39% 58%
Dec 27 40% 55%
Dec 18-19 41% 55%
Dec 12-13 40% 56%
Dec 4-5 41% 51%
Nov 29 41% 53%
Nov 21-22 38% 56%
Nov 13-14 47% 49%
Nov 7-8 45% 52%
Oct 30-31 42% 54%
Oct 24-25 45% 51%
Oct 16-17 42% 54%
Oct 10-11 44% 50%
Oct 2-3 46% 50%
Sep 24-25 41% 56%
Sep 16-17 43% 56%
Sep 15-16 44% 53%
Sep 14-15 42% 55%
Sep 13-14 45% 52%
Sep 12-13 51% 46%
Sep 11-12 48% 48%
Sep 10-11 47% 49%
Sep 9-10 46% 51%
Sept 8-9 44% 53%
Aug 25-26 43% 53%
Aug 9-10 42% 53%
Jul 26-27 47% 49%
Jul 20-21 44% 53%
Jul 10-11 46% 49%
Jun 27-28 50% 45%

My point is simple, the American people do not want any health care plan by this administration and this congress. Rasmussen is usually right on the money.

But it might not matter because this administration and this congress want to push this through anyway.

For those who want a public option, President Obama said late last week that all he wants is to pass this bill and the rest, to include the public option, can be put back in later.

People are still opposed to this monstrosity.

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

Yes, but that’s just Rasmussen, who everyone agrees leans conservative. The average of all results from all polling organizations gives a clearer picture of public sentiment and shows a plurality if not a majority of support for what the new legislation will do. Basing one’s entire argument on one poll, whether it be Rasmussen or Research 2000, is cherry-picking.

Posted by Liberaltarian | Report as abusive

If you say so. However, Rasmussen has proven to be an accurate and unbiased opinion poll. For instance, when it comes to elections, his polling is very accurate.

I have found other polling sites to be less than candid on their data and in the end, they are usually not that accurate.

I had this discussion with someone else a year ago about the fall elections in Virginia, NJ and MA. While they used data that showed how they would favor the democrat candidates winning, Rasmussen was actually showing healthy wins by the republican challengers in each state election. Rasmussen was right and my debating partner was wrong about his sources. He got quiet for awhile after that.

My point, is that people don’t like Rasmussen if they are more progressive because Rasmussen shatters their view of what of Americans are thinking, Rasmussen accurately gauges the mood of Americans.

When it comes to health care, the bottom line is that Americans do not want any health care proposal by this president and this congress.

That is my only point and data shows I am correct.

Otherwise, the American people wouldn’t be tying up the phones lines to congress screaming to vote no on the health care bill…..

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

This is a paragraph from this morning’s article on public opinion on healthcare, and it supports my point that polls vary.
“So what do Americans actually think about healthcare? Hard to figure. But as polls past suggest, the answer may really truly depend on the question. Ask people about comprehensive government involvement and many may run scared. Focus on individual features of reform and the results can be surprisingly different.
The public option has been one of the most popular individual reform features, favored by a 57 percent majority. That’s the same public option Democrats abandoned long ago as being way too radical.”

I was wrong about the 51% majority in support. It’s 57%.

Rasmussen has a reputation for conservative bias because of the way it crafts its questions. The fact that Mr Rasmussen appears on Fox News quite a bit should also raise a few flags. People believe what they want to believe. I am relatively new to politics so I am still trying to take the broad view. I look at as much data as is available, rather than sticking with one source.

Posted by Liberaltarian | Report as abusive


I was explaining to you why I have settled on Rasmussen and I explained to you that of all the polls out there, it is the most accurate poll based on the outcomes of elections and the mood of the country.

I understand your need to look at a wide range of polls, but what would make you think the rest of the polls are any more accurate than Rasmussen? I base my opinion on how events have actually played out rather than taking as gospel every single poll out there. As I said, in my experience some of the other polls are not as accurate as Rasmussen has turned out to be.

There are liberals who say Rasmussen is the most accurate poll out there and I happen to agree with that assessment.

I will agree to disagree with you on the public option. If the majority of Americans truly wanted the public option, it would be in the bill right now. It isn’t.

However, as I also said, Obama has said more than once that the public option can be put back in later after something…anything is passed as a starting point.

The public option is not dead and that concerns the majority of Americans.

Why in the world would Rasmussen being on Fox news raise any flags. Do flags raise for you when the liberal minded pollsters are on CNN, MSNBC or any of the other networks? If you are fair and balanced, flags would be raised over there too.

However, I don’t believe you are fair and balanced. liberalitarian seems to fit you well.

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

I am sure no flags are raised for you when you watch any pollster on CNN or MSNBC.

I don’t think you are taking a broad view when you immediately question a very accurate pollster just because he is interviewed by FOX.

Compared to CNN, MSNBC or any of the network news outlets, FOX really is fair and balanced in comparison to any of them.

But apparently you believe what you want to believe.

Posted by TyC | Report as abusive

Rasmussen also said McCain would win the 2008 presidential election. How did that work out?

Posted by Yellow105 | Report as abusive