OMG - Moveon.org is a CORPORATION!!!

[jberryhill]

Actaully, Moveon.org is more than one corporation.

Check it out. Search on Moveon.org in the California corporation database:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/

We need to take away their First Amendment rights immediately!

[RB TexLa]

1. And what right did DU have to not hand over member information when the government asked for it.

DU is not a person. How can DU claim rights under the 4th amendment?

[sandnsea]

5. That was protecting human beings

Which was what the Bill of Rights was created for. DU, as a business, should only have the rights that we the PEOPLE decide a business should have, through legislation.

[Luminous Animal]

6. So government should have the right, without a warrant

or due process, to raid any corporation and to seize their assets.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Corporations should have No Rights - the People on the List Do

that remedies that bunch of BS

[jberryhill]

15. Falwell v. Hustler Inc.

So you agree with Jerry Falwell that since Hustler Inc. is a corporation, it could not use a First Amendment defense when he sued them, right?

Also, New York Times Co. did not have a right to publish the Pentagon Papers.

[sandnsea]

21. freedom of the press

Which is a completely different issue.

[jberryhill]

24. How is it a different issue?

You do know what the Citizen's United case was about, yes?

[sandnsea]

28. Citizens United is not a media outlet n/t

[jberryhill]

34. Yeah - they were prevented them from being one

So, a company produces a film.

But if they want to show that film, they need government permission, unless
they are a "media outlet" however that term is defined.

Is that it?

Is Google a "media outlet" because it runs YouTube?

Is General Electric a "media outlet" because it runs NBC?

Is Moveon.org a "media outlet"?

[sandnsea]

45. An entity that operates as a purveyor of news

As its primary purpose. News is not the primary purpose of YouTube, GE or Moveon.

[jberryhill]

49. Okay, so MoveOn.org does not have First Amendment rights?

And MSNBC is not a news outlet?

[sandnsea]

51. Where did I say that? n/t

[jberryhill]

54. You said they were not a news outlet...

Which I assume is your line on which corporations have First Amendment rights and which don't.

[sandnsea]

61. MSNBC? No I didn't.

And no, Moveon is not a news outlet and consequently doesn't have freedom of the press rights that a journalist would.

There also should be a different legal category for nonprofits, I've said that repeatedly and clearly.

Now you've resorted to distorting my words because you've got no argument.

[jberryhill]

64. MSNBC is part of General Electric

So Exxon can organize "The Climate News Network" and that would be a media outlet?

[sandnsea]

68. So is Budapest Bank. So? n/t

[treestar]

76. People are trying to make the distinctions the decision does not want to make

Because it takes years to litigate, those who wanted to air Hillary, the Movie, only get to find out when it is too late if the movie is produced by a nonprofit or a corporation or an entity subjection to 441(b) or not.

The funny thing here is that movie wouldn't have had an effect. Obama won the primary anyway. In hindsight they were wasting their time.

And we would get to air "Sarah - the soap opera" in the last 90 days would be subject to the same thing. Who paid for it? We're assuming it would just be individuals and that they could not afford to produce that work.

Yet we didn't need to pay for it, since it produces itself.

[FreakinDJ]

29. Because Corporations have Rights "Granted Them"

They are not "Persons" and therefore No "Inalienable Rights" as referred to by the Declaration

Again the same question - "Do Corporations serve the People? - Or do the People Serve the Corporation?"

[tabasco]

22. If there was no corporate pesonhood,

it would be Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flynt.

Same result.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

[jberryhill]

25. And what would Sullivan v New York Times Co. have been about?

[sandnsea]

32. NYT v Sullivan?

Defamation and freedom of the press?

[jberryhill]

38. Yes

Party names are reversed from trial through appeal, depending on who is bringing the appeal at any particular level.

Freedom of the press is in the First Amendment, just like anything else. What part of the First Amendment are you reading to include or exclude corporations from any given part of it?

CBS doesn't operate a "press", but won Westmoreland v. CBS.

Scientology is a corporation, too - as are a lot of church organizations.

[sandnsea]

43. freedom of the press is a separate legal argument n/t

[jberryhill]

52. The First Amendment is the First Amendment

So you would have been fine if Citizens United wanted to distribute printed material instead of a film.

Correct?

[sandnsea]

53. Citizens United is not a media outlet. PERIOD. n/t

[jberryhill]

60. Neither is Moveon.org - so shut them both up is the conclusion /nt

[sandnsea]

63. No. Change the legal classification

Stop calling them corporations so that for profit corporations are considered differently, as they should be.

[Luminous Animal]

77. There would be nothing stopping a for profit corp from funneling money

into a non-profit. Or changing their charter to non-profit. For instance, Kaiser health insurance operates as a non-profit.

[sandnsea]

85. There already is

That's part of what got Abramoff in trouble, funneling money into a nonprofit that he used for his own piggy bank.

Yes Kaiser operates as a non-profit. Exxon isn't going to do that.

[Luminous Animal]

92. That is because he was engaging in fraud.

If the transaction was transparent, and the non-profit operated within the law, it wouldn't be an issue. Consider CREDO which donates to non-profits. There are plenty of non-profits that rely on for profit corporate donations.

[sandnsea]

97. Yes. There already are laws in place

regulating all of that, what can and can't happen with money between for-profit and non-profit. That's what I said. Fraud is fraud and will continue to be. I don't get your point.

[jberryhill]

95. Corporations can't donate to Planned Parenthood? Are you kidding? /nt

[sandnsea]

98. There are laws regulating the process

and regulating the relationship between a for-profit and non-profit. Why are you kidding that there isn't?

[jberryhill]

103. Oh boy...

Using transactions among related entities to launder money is not at all relevant.

If you set up the "Conservative Education Foundation" - a non-profit media company to produce right wing films, you can get donations from whomever, in any amount, so long as you manage to spend it all (and your salary will reflect how important you are).

Any corporation can drop as large a money bag as it wants on Planned Parenthood or, as demonstrated this week, The Red Cross (which is the largest retail blood operation in the US, and the CEO compensation is in the million dollar range).

[sandnsea]

106. And it's regulated, as it pertains to political campaigns n/t

[greymattermom]

108. nonprofits

get money from PHARMA all the time to run educational events.

[sandnsea]

112. Better for them to buy the candidate directly? n/t

[tabasco]

40. Sullivan vs. the editor of the newspaper.

Next.

[jberryhill]

44. So, we chill free speech

So that rich people and large corporations can control newspapers by threatening to bankrupt it's individual employees with litigation?

Do you know what it costs to defend a lawsuit - even if you win?

Any editor is going to decide to squelch stories if it is his ass on the line.

[sandnsea]

48. Corporations already control the media

You want to give them even more power.

[treestar]

78. Those with $$ control the media, whether in corporate form or not

DU is conflating the issue of free speech with the practical consideration that the rich always get more of everything since they can buy it.

Though all they can buy is airtime. We didn't object to Obama's one half hour of TV time when he did it - or Ross Perot's TV shows that he paid for himself.

One way to appeal to the voters is that the rich are behind a thing - who doesn't hate the rich who is not among them?

[jberryhill]

84. That's why the right makes Soros out to be a boogeyman...

...and rail about "Hollywood" influencing elections.

But the DU overreaction boils down to - "Let's get Planned Parenthood out of politics!"

[sandnsea]

102. We currently have campaign funding laws

What individuals do with their money, or a campaign does with its money, is up to them within the law. They are human, they have a face, they have a stake in the outcome. An election.

A corporation is completely different and currently the humans behind the corporations are pretty well faceless. Yes the rich always get more of everything, that's a given. We legalize their buying of electionis and give them protection from the masses as the same time. It's absurd.

[tabasco]

55. Nope.

The corporation contributes, as negotiated in the work contract.

Pretty simple concept.

[dixiegrrrrl]

46. The lawyer defending the NY times is the same guy who

argued FOR the corporations in the now infamous SCOTUS case.
Floyd Abrams, father of MSNBC's Don Abrams ( who KO dislikes intensely).
Yep. Floyd has a track record of defending a lot of good guys re: free speech rights
( Al Franken, for one) but sure did not seem to be doing you and me any favors with his latest
court foray.
check him out in Wiki.

[FreakinDJ]

66. A Radical definition of "Person"

ALL of this stems from an erroneous decision by and extremely corrupt 1886 SCOTUS granting Corporations "Person" status in the 14th Amendment

[treestar]

39. One practical thought

the courts would get even more backed up than they already are.

Every lawsuit against GM (for sympathy persons, let us say individual plaintiffs injured by GMs negligence) would have the plaintiffs having to find out the name of every shareholder to name them in the lawsuit (and there are millions).

Every one of them could have their own lawyer. Those individuals would have that right.

The court system would come to a grinding halt over one lawsuit.

[sandnsea]

58. No, you write laws on the civil suit process

We do that already. They just changed the class action laws. They could write the laws so that the same civil process exists.

[treestar]

88. Then corporations would be person-like for that limited purpose.

the purposes are limited. They can't vote, but they can pay taxes. No problem with me.

[Atticus]

111. Thank you! (sheeesh!)

[sandnsea]

17. You can pass laws, regardless of Constitutional Rights

And, the PEOPLE involved in the corporation don't have to give up their rights, and the assets ultimately belong to a collective of people. Those people always retained their free speech rights and always would. The Corporation, as a press release entity, does not deserve those same rights.

[jberryhill]

9. The subpoena was against DU LLC, not humans /nt

[sandnsea]

19. Because that's the way the current law is written

If a corporation wasn't a person, then they would have to execute a subpoena against an individual and that individual would have Constitutional Rights. If a business wanted to protect the privacy rights of their clients, then we can pass a law giving them that power. That's how you do it. You don't turn a business into a person. They aren't.

[sandnsea]

2. Only because we legally call them that

So legally call them an association with a different set of rules, and voila, we become accustomed to thinking of advocacy groups differently than business. Because they are.

Gads.

[jberryhill]

8. Not sure I get your point

Moveon.org is a corporation (actually two corporations) because they filed an application under CA state law to be one.

It's not a function of what we "call" them - it is what they are. Each of the 50 states has its procedure for forming one.

Anyone can form one - including very wealthy people.

[sandnsea]

14. legally. I said legally.

Because we the people, the legislators elected to enact the laws we agree on, decided to use the term corporation to organize a nonprofit. We don't have to do that. We make the laws. We can call nonprofits anything we want and organize them, under law, any way we want. WE are the government. Just because they're organized as corporations now, doesn't mean they have to stay that way. That's a pretty simple point.

[jberryhill]

23. So we are going to change the laws in each of fifty states...

...to say what?

[sandnsea]

26. Nonprofits aren't corporations

A nonprofit is a coalition of human beings formed to benefit human beings, consequently different rules apply including political rules. We can decide what those rules are. WE are the government.

[jberryhill]

31. "Non-Profits" make a LOT of money

Don't kid yourself about "non-profit" meaning "charity".

The only difference between a non-profit and a for-profit, is that the people who run a non-profit don't have to pay dividends, and have to make sure their compensation and "expenses" (to related companies) consumes every dollar that comes in.

[sandnsea]

33. No, they do not "make" money

They generally don't produce anything, do not owe dividends to anybody, and budget revenue to meet expenses and no more.

[jberryhill]

42. Do you know what United Way executives make?

Yes - you nailed it. Expenses must meet revenue. So they make sure that happens.

That's why many of the most highly compensated executives run non-profits.

The other way to do it is to have a for-profit, which provides services to the non-profit.

[sandnsea]

50. And what do corporate execs make?

There's no comparison between a nonprofit exec and a corporate exec.

But look how quickly you move away from discussing the corporation when defending profit is removed from the picture. There's no other reason to defend for profit corporations except to defend their obscene profits.

[jberryhill]

57. No comparison?

You have utterly no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/15/Business/He_s_the_highest_paid.shtml

The gap between executive salaries at big nonprofits and for-profit businesses is shrinking, stirring national debate. Some contend that nonprofit organizations like the St. Petersburg-based Goodwill, which has an annual budget of close to $40-million, compete with the business world for talented professionals and need to pay them accordingly.

[treestar]

87. They can lose $$ and go out of business too.

Or never grow to be large enough to make obscene profits.

The trouble with the law is that is cannot make a distinction based purely on $$. Like a rule saying Corporations, unions or people making over a certain amount can't fund political speech. That would work better. Who cares if it is a corporation if it's making an ad for a candidate we like?

[sandnsea]

110. I don't want people shut out

It's bad enough as it is. But if a corporation can buy a campaign, then there is no need for us to even vote. At the local level, if local corporations could run all the ads they want, we'd never get a school levey passed again. They don't have to be obscenely rich, just rich enough to offset what we the people can do at the grassroots level. It's dangerous to democracy whether they're running ads for people and issues I like or don't like.

[ellenfl]

3. the california database does not say but aren't they non-profit? eom

[jberryhill]

12. As are any number of corporate controlled right wing non-profits

So what?

[ellenfl]

36. so what funds will they be donating that they don't now? eom

[berni_mccoy]

4. A special kind of corporation with special rights granted by law. They don't make money

from comerce, but by donation for political activity. That's not true of Exxon.

[jberryhill]

10. Exxon owns non-profit foundations too

You are kidding yourself.

Any for-profit outfit can form and own a non-profit.

The American Red Cross sells blood, licenses trademarks, and carries on a hell of a lot of business through its for profit affiliated businesses.

[treestar]

79. True but an interesting issue

Their overhead is limited - they don't have to spend money on steal and factory parts, just some clerical - leaving more for the speech itself.

There are corporations that get behind our candidates, too.

[haele]

7. I hope you're indulging in a bit of hyperbole -

The issue with corporate person-hood and money being free speech, is that if money is free speech, you get more rights by having more money.
Corporations by and large have more money than individuals, thus the Supreme Court ruling potentially gave them more rights in the political sphere than actual citizens - or other corporations that might be small or depend on donations. Small, local businesses, Unions and non-profit corporations do not have access to the same amount of money that a multi-national or investment group corporation might. So even they do not have the same rights that an Exxon, Monsanto, or Halliburton (HQ now in Dubai!) has. This is the true damage done by the ruling. Which means that corporations now have to be regulated through legislative action on charters rather than through Federal Elections regulations if people will still be able to have the same legal and political rights as corporations.

By placing limits or regulations that corporations have on the amount that they can use to push candidate or initiative, the playing field is leveled amongst corporations, so the AFL/CIO, MoveOn, AARP, SEIU, the Red Cross, and Planned Parenthood have the same political speech rights as Archer Daniel Midlands, Koch, or whatever RJR Reynolds calls itself nowdays has. Which would still be a bit more than the average citizen, but at least the citizen can donate to smaller non-profit incorporations to stand against the multi-billion industries that monopolize Wall Street against living beings.

Haele

[jberryhill]

13. You are right - Moveon.org has more money than I do /nt

[grahamhgreen]

16. Did they get a 13 trillion dollar bailout? Stupid.

[jberryhill]

18. And this is relevant, how?

[grahamhgreen]

30. Is your naivete genuine? The Govt has become a revolving door - our taxes will now go directly to

big corporations who buy politicians, not Move On.

[treestar]

37. Is your cynicism genuine?

Are you paid your wages or salary by a corporation?

Probably.

Could rich individuals buy political ads? Yes. How do you plan to squelch their rights?

[grahamhgreen]

132. Squelch the rich criminals rights? Return to the Esienhower tax rate of 94%!

All political ads should be illegal. All political campaigns should be funded by tax payers.

[jberryhill]

134. I agree with that in principle....

But you'll get into a heck of a knot with what is a "political" ad.

[laughingliberal]

20. Rahm? nt

[nini]

27. they're also in the business of politics

and you freaking know the issue isn't with moveon or any obvious political corp. :eyes:


It's the corporations that we all give money to in one way or another by buying the product or services to live. You know - like buying food, gas, insurance etc.

People can chose to not deal with moveon but try and never shop at a store etc..

[jberryhill]

59. Wealthy people of all kinds fund political organizations of all kinds...

Can a corporation donate to DU? Yes it can.

[crispini]

35. Move on is a 501(c)(4) organization

A political action committee, not a corporation formed as a for-profit. There's a difference.

[treestar]

41. corporations can fund PACs too

[jberryhill]

47. So what? Corporations can't form 501(c)(4)'s?

That is a federal tax classification.

The underlying corporate entity is a creature of state law.

Oh, I see, the First Amendment says "some press, but not other press, depending on IRS classification".

[Lex]

56. take ALL the corporate money out of campaigns--ALL OF IT

I don't care, liberal, conservative, whatever.

[jberryhill]

62. Then wealthy individuals win /nt

[Lex]

65. And with corporations as "people" they don't?

Hahaha.

[jberryhill]

69. Not as much

Because organizations like People for The American Way, Planned Parenthood, Moveon.org, etc. Are vehicles for collective action by non-wealthy contributors. They are ALL corporations.

[TCJ70]

113. There are limits on individual donations...

...are there not? Public funding is the way to go for our elections.

[Ildem09]

67. amend the constitution to state that money is not free speech

get all money out of politics. max the FEC contribution on income taxes mandatory. NO PRIVATE money at all. allow the FEC to dole out funds based on what race it is etc etc. Broadcast and Cable have to give x amount of free ad space for campaigns etc

[jberryhill]

71. So Michael Moore's company cannot spend or make money?

[TexasObserver]

70. I hope this thread embarrasses you as much as it should.

You have missed the issue entirely.

The issue is not whether any corporation can have the right to promote political agendas, but rather, which rules we will have for corporations which do promote political agendas.

You have chased your tail all over the place and still not gleaned that simple point. We regulate charities and limit what they can do if they are to retain their status as an entity to which tax deductible contributions can be made. We regulate educational entities which can collect and spend money to influence subject matter issues in politics without advocating for a particular party or candidate.

In summary, we already regulate the ability of corporations to raise and spend money on causes. We define which of the contributions can be deducted, and which cannot be deducted. It matters greatly if a corporation must spend pre tax or post tax dollars to try to influence elections.

This dilemma presented by the Supreme Court ruling is simple: do we as a society and a functioning representative democracy want to allow international corporations with deep pockets and a multitude of foreign entanglements to freely spend money to influence our elections?

You naively stumble through your version of why one corporation is the same as another, missing the point entirely. We regulate those who try to influence elections, whether they are individuals, partnerships, associations, joint ventures, limited liability companies, or proprietorships. We do so because the body politic requires it. Removing those controls would corrupt the body politic much further than it has already been corrupted, a fact so simple almost everyone gets it.

There were five Supreme Court votes for this ruling - the five right wingers who stole the 2000 election - and you're siding with those five. That should be enough for a progressive to know they are in the wrong, but you don't get it. The fact that the four good justices voted against this decision should have been a clue to you, but it wasn't.

[jberryhill]

72. Not embarrassed in the least

You are absolutely correct that the decision is a call to go back to the drawing board on the statute in question.

But this nonsense of "corporations are not legal persons and can't invoke rights" is nonsense. Sure, if you want to set back First Amendment law by a century, then you can advocate for that - you can shutter newspapers, publishers, film production companies, and you can stop Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, MoveOn.org, and many other corporate entities, like Democratic Underground LLC, which are formed for advancing a political agenda.

The decision is troubling, but much of the reaction is infantile.

[treestar]

73. Whoah with that smugness pal

I am now trying to read the decision. It is hard going.

All DU angst is on the premise that corporations have more money. so would you be OK with limiting a wealthy individuals in the same way?

Or be OK with the limits on a corporation without much money? (Yes there is such an animal).

It's you who doesn't get the issue. the unions were the great boogieman in the mid-20th century and that is why unions were included in the restriction!

the issue is money. Moveon.org has less $$ that is why we are afraid it cannot influence voters as much as I, t & T. Unions have less money, that's why we are worried.

In the end, we are only worried because the people with more $$, be they individual or corporate or nonprofit or whatever, get to make more ads and air them more often.

The media is saturated and anyone can put their stuff on you-tube now, so the rich people's influence can wane. We have to learn to take advantage of that. The Obama campaign used the internet effectively.

[joe_sixpack]

82. As I read more about it, I tend to agree with you in some respects

As long as disclosure rules are still in place, it may not benefit corporations as much as we are fearing. For example, if AIG or Goldman Sachs pour money into a race against a candidate, might the opposition not benefit from pointing that out in its own ads?

[TexasObserver]

114. The Supreme Court is a political body setting political policy.

This decision is a political decision, not a legal decision. It is clothed in legal terminology because that's how the Supreme Court always justifies its decisions. They determine where they want to move the law, then they justify it with cases which can be used to either support them, or tortured until they appear to support the court's action.

Legalistic opinions can be used to support segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson) or to strike it down (Brown v. The Board of Education). The law changes when society changes, and the court's opinions are supposed to reflect that. Except in the instant case, the court did not do that. It did not follow the direction of society in its evolving effort to contain the corrupting influence of money in politics. The Supreme Five are acting as an agent of the rich and powerful, just as they did when the SC appointed the Bush boy president. In this case, the five man majority is attempting to subvert democratically created limitations on the overwhelming influence of money in elections. Never lose sight that is what is taking place.

This same court has approved "free speech" zones to move protesters miles from presidential activities. This court majority has no problem restricting real free speech. That they would strain at the gnat of public political protest speech and swallow the camel of corrupting money in politics is more evidence that the Supreme Court five are corrupt GOP hacks who should be investigated for their political activities while on the bench, and impeached as appropriate.

[newspeak]

74. corporations should never have been given "personhood"

They are given the rights of individuals but not the responsibility. If a corporation knowingly poisons a community's drinking water, and the people of that community suffer and die from their thoughtlessness, their liability is minimal--yet, if I, as an individual, poison the drinking water, I am charged with murder. A corporation, through its' personage status is given a hell of a lot more power, than you and me as an individual, and yet, less of the liability or the responsibility.

No, I don't think a wealthy person has a right to pour millions into someone's campaign. I think there should be a limit placed on individual donations. No, I don't think corporations have the right to funnel large quantities of cash (no limits) for their presumed "right to free speech", especially to bamboozle an unwitting public to vote against their own interests.

[jberryhill]

75. The limits on campaign contributions remain - for individuals and corporations

I'm getting a sense a lot of people don't know what the decision was about.

[newspeak]

81. the limits remain on campaigns

the limits on putting a BS message on the networks-using billions to bamboozle, is not the same.

[treestar]

83. I still can't figure out what's it's about and I'm reading it!

but there are people on DU who wake up every morning looking for new reasons to feel victimized and this one is one that on the surface looks useful.

The decision is right in its way, it just doesn't account for the fact the rich tend to be Republican and will get more access to the expensive parts of the media. As it points out, each voter can decide how to inform themselves. In theory voters can pick up a cheap copy of the Nation and read it, but they watch TV instead - and the expensive ads. which Democrats can still afford, but not as often as not as slick.

Yet still Democrats can win sometimes.

And if claiming that those further progressive don't win, they don't account for Dennis K. being in the podium during the primary debates. If he'd been able to make major inroads, the media would have been forced to pay more attention to him.

So it's not just $$ and that alone. You have to think that the voters are so dumb they are just bought to consider this decision a complete disaster to democracy for all time.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Obama's opinion usually carries weight around here

"This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. The court overturned more than a century of law.".

Guess he wakes up in the morning not understanding the law and looking for things to feel victimized about? Is that your stand here?

[treestar]

91. Oh gee, I don't agree with Obama!

Can I get credit here for not cheerleading and not drinking kool-aid?

[laughingliberal]

96. Interesting to see dissent when he stands up against a ruling to further enshrine the corporate

powers in the country. Most of us have been dissenting against his too corporate friendly policies.

[jberryhill]

99. It's where you go from there

The response is remedial legislation. That is the type of dialogue built into the Constitution.

You show me where Obama said "OMG, corporations shouldn't have First Amendment rights!" because he knows as well as any civil rights lawyer that the many of the most important First Amendment cases were won by corporaions.

[treestar]

90. A corporation couldnt' be charged with murder, but if it could be

who would go to jail - it's not really a big problem. But for civil purposes, if it poisons people, it is liable though. So it does have responsibilities, IMO. If it has deep pockets all the better - then it can pay the damages. If a corporation or person with no $$ poisons a plaintiff and plaintiff gets a judgment, it might be un-collectable.

It's who has the $$, which doesn't boil down to corporate or not.

It's the rich who have the advantage in everything, whether they are in corporate form or not. So the spending limits are the more effective deterrent to the rich getting more chances to push their candidates.

Though of course they would cleverly split up the funds among different entities. Still that would take time and limit each particular ad.

[newspeak]

100. you are talking monetary liability

monetary liability over human life? Who would go to jail? Every damn individual within the corporation who knowingly caused the damage and attempted to cover it up. Ya know when I'm telling a story about contaminating a community's water or the auto industry deciding to knowingly sell vehicles they knew were defective-these are from real cases. When a board decided that they'd make more profit by releasing a defective product to the public--that the liability of killing someone would be less than fixing the damage--is premeditated murder--the board knew people were going to die, they just didn't know who or how many. The whole damn board who made the decision should be tried for murder.

Again, a corporation as an entity (it is not a person) has less liability and less responsibility than you or me; however, some of them have committed large scale damage to people and communities.

[jberryhill]

105. Yes it can

A corporation engaged in crime can have all of it's assets seized, its operation put under the control of a court appointed receiver, and its existence dissolved.

But because people are so generally ignorant of law, this notion that corporations aren't subject to criminal actions is a pretty widespread myth here.

Yes, it happens. What do you think the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act is all about? It is about corporations as criminal enterprises.

But, yes, if you proceed from an incorrect premise, you reach an incorrect conclusion.

Corporations ARE subject to criminal liability.

[newspeak]

115. so a corporation may be disbanded

so how many ceo's or boards have been charged with murder? Yes, I'm aware of RICO--the two instances I've mentioned, those who have caused irreparably harm to others were not charged for anything. Corporations are not subject to criminal liability the same as individuals, period. And, keep acting like that rest of us are totally clueless about the laws that do exist for corporate malfeasance.

Nor did I say they weren't subject to any laws--the laws have less consequence for their actions, than laws that individuals must abide by. And, some corporations have so much money and so much power, not even the government will tackle them-like, let's say an anti-trust suit against GE. You want to know why the government wouldn't go against them, because the government couldn't match the money needed to go against them.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. And your point is? I mean, I was a corp. Me. Myself. I.

You seem to think others do not know what the term means. Get real, grow up, incorporate if you have to in order to understand.
Geez.

[newspeak]

86. I do know what it means

I also know the difference between partnerships and corporations. A corporation, in my view, has a limited liability--it also protects the assets of an individual from liability.

[jberryhill]

94. A lot of folks here obviously do not

I am the sole owner of my own business which, yes, is an LLC.

Half of DU wants to get Planned Parenthood out of politics, or prevent Planned Parenthood from accepting contributions from for profit companies. I don't see any other way to interpret the nonsensical and overboard reactions to the Citizens United decision.

If you don't want Michael Moore's production company to have its films subject to First Amendment protection, that's fine. But I think it is wothwhile for some here to understand the consequences of a good deal of the foaming at the mouth here.

[laughingliberal]

93. Another Corporatist Apologist on Democratic website. We're well and truly screwed in this country. n

[jberryhill]

101. Yes - I am an apologist for Planned Parenthood

oooookay... That must mean I'm a Freeper.

It is a bad decision.

A good deal of the reaction to it is nonsense.

[laughingliberal]

104. It's disingenuous and you know it

The day Planned Parenthood has enough money to compete with Walmart to purchase a Senate race, we'll talk. Until then your attempts to support corporate control of the country are quite transparent.

[jberryhill]

107. Sorry, but I am quite sincere

Your point is premised on some line of "how much money do they have".

Distinctions in legal principles are not premised on how much money an organization has, or whether we like them.

If you want an across the board rule that says "corporations can't engage in politics" then you can kiss moveon.org, planned parenthood, NOW, NARAL, etc. goodbye.

It's a bad decision, and requires a legislative response. But the reaction from some is simplistic, counterproductive, and uninformed.

[laughingliberal]

109. I want public financing of campaigns, period.

The current system which has allowed our government to be sold to the highest bidder is destroying the American people. And now it will be worse.

[jberryhill]

118. The case is not about direct campaign contributions

it is about media funded by private entities separate from the campaign, and whether that can be controlled as an "effective" contribution to the campaign.

[laughingliberal]

122. I think there was a reason we had restrictions in place. They weren't stiff enough for me as it was

When the problem with access to the media is how much it costs the wealthy interests have a distinct advantage. Having our lawmakers bought by the highest bidder has really worked out well for us peasants, huh?

Now, it's exponentially worse.

[jberryhill]

124. Absolutely - and a GOOD reason at that

The problem is trying to capture that in legislation which can survive a First Amendment challenge.

It would be a "good reason" for everyone's home to be inspected for the purpose of making sure they weren't holding kidnap victims. It would also be unconstitutional.

Having a "good reason" and translating that into something Constitutional, are two different things.

The answer here is not "corporations shouldn't have First Amendment rights". Not only is that unconstitutional, but it is dangerous.

[laughingliberal]

126. There is no problem with a corporation saying whatever they want

Just as there is no problem with my saying whatever I want. The problem is that only those with money get heard. I do not think money equals speech. I think the Supreme Court ruling is wrong and 4 justices think so, too. The problem is the ability to be heard. We need a free press again in this country. I don't know how we get there but this sure as hell isn't it.

[newspeak]

120. so, please answer

you've talked about laws specifically for corporations-RICO, etc.... Do corporations have to abide by the SAME laws as individuals?

[jberryhill]

123. It Depends On The Context

Are individuals subject to the same laws as corporations? If you date a person of one race, and a person of another race, are you going to face a lawsuit when you decide to marry one or the other.

Typically the law will refer to "natural persons" when a distinction is to be made but, no, you don't have to file a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission before you tell the kids where the family vacation will be.

Corporations are subject to criminal liability, yes. There seem to be quite a few here that don't know that, and there are quite a few criminal laws that ONLY apply to corporations.

Oddly, law is as complex as society, and black/white, yes/no questions are typically not illuminating. The point being advanced on DU by many goes far beyond anything new or remarkable about this bad decision, and why it is a bad decision. Instead, the response is "corporations shouldn't have First Amendment rights", which is absolutely ignorant of many landmark decisions advancing the First Amendment.

You don't want corporations to have Constitutional rights. Then next time DU LLC doesn't get served with a subpoena, because the government can just drop by and collect whatever it wants.

[newspeak]

127. actually they can now basically drop by DU and get what they want

Corporations are not punished to the same extent for criminality as an individual. And you're right, I don't want corporations to have "personhood." The corporation faces penalty for harming thousands of people, think Enron--the corporation is disbanded (so is that the death penalty for corporations for the total devastation they committed). Hell, they helped ruin California. But, Enron being disbanded can also be resurrected under another name.

An individual doing as much devastation, would be in prison for life. But, that doesn't happen to white collar criminals under corporations, does it? Again, corporations enjoy all of the rights of an individual, but not the same consequences or responsibilities of an individual.

You're arguing, well, they're different than a person, isn't that why they have specific laws geared to corporations--because in this country, it will probably be a cold day in hell that a corporation or its' board will ever be charged with murder, and the punishment for such a crime would not be the same if you or I did the crime. And, because there is less consequence for their actions, and they are held to different standards under the law, Why would you think a corporation deserves "personhood?"

[newspeak]

128. and, isn't it really a group of people who form a corporation, so that

the corporation assumes the liability and responsibility of those individuals? So, the corporation assumes responsibilities and the penalties of their decisions. It's like a front, to decrease individual responsibility.

I do think, however, there are some really responsible corporations-but those corporations are responsible because of the people who make up those corporations. The corporation, assumes the character of the people within the corporation. So, why aren't the people within the corporation held more responsible for the actions of the corporation? And, of course, since it is individuals within the corporation; as individuals they have all the rights and privileges of other people: but, I don't believe a corporation has the same rights or privileges as people. Nor do I think a corporation can accept the same consequences for its actions, like people.

[Overseas]

116. Oh no golly gee really? You mean a liberal corporation would be treated like a corporation too?!?!?!

Oh golly really? You mean any incorporated organization would be affected by removal of/or imposition of rules on corporations? Oh gosh, you mean just because all the news stories about the decision told us it applied equally to incorporated businesses and unions and advocacy groups that it applies equally to incorporated businesses, unions and advocacy groups? Really?

It is funny that right wingers say things like -- But Golly, Then The Sierra Club would be limited too !!! -- as though we have no ability to read and listen, and on the other hand accuse liberals of being intellectual elites. Which is it? Do we have 6th grade reading skills or are we like right wing reactionaries-- All or Nothing Absolutist Types?

Guess it is just fun for right wingers to run their lines-- HEY LIMITS WOULD AFFECT LIBERAL GROUPS TOO !! As though that is earth shattering news that would throw us into a tailspin, even though it is more like "Duh."

Of course we want limits on campaign spending to apply to all groups, especially if liberal groups following rules would mean that giant corporations with hundreds of times as much money to spend would also be restrained. That is how things had been for decades. Common sense. Restrictions on corporate spending because they had billions more in profits available as conglomerated entities than individual natural persons did. It was a way to protect the free speech of individual natural persons.

[jberryhill]

119. You've been reading a different DU this week, I see....

The rhetoric at DU has not been about limits, regulations, or rules. The bulk of it has been that corporate organizations - of any kind whatsoever - should not have First Amendment rights at all.

If you haven't seen that here, stop kidding yourself.

You really haven't seen that stuff here?

[newspeak]

121. actually, I want "personhood" stripped from corporations

I studied corporate structures and business in college, and I've wanted personhood stripped for a long long time. This decision, just puts the icing on the cake for me.

[jberryhill]

125. Okay, so then you don't want them to

Be able to contract.

Own property.

Be subject to lawsuits.

Publish newspapers without government control.

Run colleges or universities.

Maybe DU LLC can change to Feudalism Underground... Since that's what the Dutch managed to get away from, largely through the invention of a vehicle by which it did not require a royal inheritance to form and fund a venture.

[newspeak]

129. well, gosh darn

I just wonder what they did before that little constitutional amendment whoopsie. Gee, the whole country must of been utterly destroyed-and those newspapers before that must have gone bankrupt. And, all of the industrialists were just sobbing in their champagne before the companies could be real people. I'm telling ya the whole country was in disarray.

[Overseas]

136. The protesting is more about Money Equals Speech. And corpulent corporations being individual puny

people. The equivalencies.

The Exxon Corporation = The Nature Conservancy = Little Old Me

equivalencies that are laughable.

I have not seen anyone saying all must be totally limited. I see people freaking out because our national discourse is already so heavily dominated by corporate PR that they can't envision any need whatsoever to increase the corporate dominance, yet the Bush v Gore initiated Supreme Court has decide the sector with multi-billions needs more freedom to conquer.

We know "free speech" does not equal Purchased Privatized Speech. Curbing corporate power allows much weaker voices to be heard. And has done so for many decades.

[SOS]

117. Goldman Sachs bonus pool for Jan.-Sept. 2010: $16.7 billion

MoveOn.org entire ad budget for the 2008 cycle: $30 million

Just the bonus money (for 9 months) of one Wall Street bank is 556 times the entire MoveOn budget.

Some corporations will get a lot more first amendment than others.

And they should all be banned 60 days prior to a general election.
As it was until last week.

[Hello_Kitty]

130. Your point? I don't consider MoveOn to be a person either.

I also don't consider money to be speech, even if I agree with the mission of whoever's spending it on an election.

[Bonobo]

131. OMG, Jberyhill is a lawyer!

Go figure.

[jberryhill]

135. Yes, so are a lot of people

I spend a lot of time fighting against large corporations on behalf of individuals and small businesses.

Whose rights have you fought for lately?

You want another shock to your fragile system, Bonobo?

One of my professors in law school was...... Joe Biden! Oh the horror!

[fascisthunter]

133. Lol...MoveOn is not a "person" and neither are Corporations

campaigns should be funded by tax payers.