Corporations can't have it both ways

[LiberalEsto]

Here's a solution that I've come up with to the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to pour huge money donations into political campaigns. This fall's mid-term elections look likely to be awash in corporate campaign spending like never before, and I hate to think what this bodes for our democracy's future.

Corporations are regarded by the law of the land as "persons," right?

And individual persons are limited to $2,500 donations, right?

So either corporations should relinquish their claims to personhood, or, as "persons," be restricted to the $2,500 donation limit.

They can't have it both ways. They can't pick and choose and say that certain parts of one set of laws apply to them, while other parts don't count.

They can't on the one hand continue to insist on corporate personhood, yet on the other hand refuse to abide by the rules imposed on individual American persons.

I am increasingly sickened by the amount of control that corporations maintain over our elected officials and over our entire nation. Good, effective health care reform would be in effect already, were it not for the big money spent by the health insurance industry on keeping the horrible status quo.

Thom Hartman is absolutely right when he says members of Congress should wear NASCAR-like sponsor patches listing their corporate masters.

Maybe some campaign finance reform lawyers can take this corporate person/individual donor limit theory of mine and see if they can work up a case that can shoot down the recent Supreme Court decision.

I can only dream...

[ibegurpard]

1. Of course they can

they control the lawmakers.

[kenny blankenship]

6. They're very good at it - and you might even say they're designed to have it both ways

The corporate management is legally obliged to maximize shareholder value - to pursue profits without regard to ethics.
The corporate ownership of shareholders is legally shielded from liability for damages caused by the profit seeking activities of the management. They can lose only the value of their stake, which they can almost always flip to someone looking for a rebound in shares when the going gets tough anyway. So they can't be held liable for more, and they almost certainly will lose less in depreciation of their stock.

That's certainly having it both ways at least for the shareholders. They get to benefit passively from the decisions of people -employees- who may act with the reckless disregard of pirates, but then they can't be held responsible for those acts.

[jody]

2. Makes sense and since persons convicted of killing lose their ability to make a profit while in

prison, then take away all profits from a corporation for the identical number of years appropriate for a murder sentence.

[LiberalEsto]

3. That's a good point

Corporations that kill people should face penalties like this

[RB TexLa]

4. Corporations have made no claim of persons hood. Idiotic bumper sticker short answer

fodder.

[LiberalEsto]

8. You're so sweet

General Discussion seems to have lost all concept of civilized discussion and debate. There is no need for gratuitous insults.

Regarding corporate personhood:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/corporate-personhood_b_433615.html

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html
NY Times editorial excerpt:
"The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns — a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.

In an exchange this month with Chief Justice Roberts, the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, argued against expanding that narrowly defined personhood. “Few of us are only our economic interests,” she said. “We have beliefs. We have convictions.” Corporations, “engage the political process in an entirely different way, and this is what makes them so much more damaging,” she said.

Chief Justice Roberts disagreed: “A large corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests.” Justice Antonin Scalia said most corporations are “indistinguishable from the individual who owns them.”"

[Make7]

5. Since Citizens United doesn't pertain to direct campaign contributions...

... any attempt to restrict spending on the basis of direct campaign contribution limits would be ineffective.


Here's some information on the case:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission


And some information on FEC campaign regulations:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Prohibited_Contributions
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
 

[Odin2005]

7. Only the facade of consitutional government exists anymore,

Corporations now run the show, and they could not care less about our constitution, it's "just a piece of paper" that gets in the way of their profits.

welcome to Techno-Feudalism, AKA the Corporate State.