Printable View
Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending
With a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS has sold the American people out to corporate interests.
While they are at it, they may as well fix it so actual, breathing, citizens count as only 3/5ths... :furious3:
This is unfortunate. Although I don't vote very often, this is still distressing.
This is particularly distressing, since I have an exam on Campaign Finance tomorrow. Everything I spent a month learning has suddenly been blown out the window by a colossal fart, courtesy of SCOTUS and corporations
Remember, it's not money, it's free speech.
And at risk of committing a Godwin: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." — Benito Mussolini
Good, that law is unconstitutional.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
From the Majority Opinion:
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
This isn't any sort of sell out; it's a recognition of the first amendment and a strike against incumbent protection laws passed by those same incumbents.
CR
you do realize that the word "amendment" itself states that the original writers made a mistake right??Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
so why can´t the amendment itself be wrong? saying that corporations can essentially "buy" political power does not lead anywhere good.
Are you familiar with how the Bill of Rights came into being?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Also - this is a country ruled by law, law based and restricted by the constitution. No one can legally declare part of the constitution wrong and ignore it. Any wrongness is irrelevant, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.
CR
Ronin, CR is correct, the Bill of Rights has every bit of force and applicability as the Constitution. Point of law, the amendments are a part of the Constitution. That's how we roll.
Personally, I find the awarding of full rights and privileges to corporations that we award to citizens problematic, both in application and origin, seeing as it was invented and inserted into the Supreme Court's records in 1886 by a court reporter. Weird but true.
Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.
-edit-
Here's a decent Wiki article about the history, pros and cons of corporate personhood.
This isn't so much about corporate personhood as whether a group of people can engage in free speech. And the law extended beyond corporations to non-profit groups as well.
In the end, it's about free speech. It's whether or not you support free speech, and that means all free speech, not only speech you agree with, or speech that isn't offensive, or speech from certain groups of people.
CR
Legally incorrect. A "non-profit group" falls within the legal definition of corporation, as would an LLC, co-op, what-have-you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Free speech is a privilege of citizens, so it's a bit weird to declare that this isn't about corporate personhood. Are you suggesting that the bill of rights extends to all creatures, organizations and entities so long as they are within the United States? Does this mean dogs have free speech? How about robots? How about dolphins? How about illegal immigrants? If not, why not?
This is entirely about corporate personhood. We are unique in western democracies in that we extend to corporations the same rights and privileges that we accord to citizens. And it's all based on the independent actions of an 1886 court reporter (although that dubious precedent has been upheld many times since).
Ah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they? The examples listed in the majority opinion illustrate to me why corporations should be able to speak freely.Quote:
Free speech is a privilege of citizens, so it's a bit weird to declare that this isn't about corporate personhood. Are you suggesting that the bill of rights extends to all creatures, organizations and entities so long as they are within the United States? Does this mean dogs have free speech? How about robots? How about dolphins? How about illegal immigrants? If not, why not?
CR
Well, all of the individuals in the corporation can speak individually, correct? It does seem a bit odd.Quote:
Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together?
Corporations have key differences from an individual citizen. Among them:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
- They are immortal
- They are (usually) immune from most forms of liability*
- They lack personal (and often organizational) legal accountability
- They usually command far more
moneyfree speech than any citizen- They are able to carve out legal and financial exemptions not available to any citizen
- For commercial corporations, their primary mission is the maximization of shareholder value (which is as it should be), not the common weal, which gives them a natural difference of focus and interest from a citizen
And so forth. To their long list of advantages over citizens, we also add the full spectrum of rights and privileges accorded to individuals, who have the disadvantage of dying and not having immunity from liability.
Obviously, I think this is misguided, and should be re-examined. We're the only western democracy that does this, and the latest Supreme Court decision just makes the contrast starker.
______________
*Exception being sole proprietor businesses, but you knew that already.
Corporations are not groups of citizens, they are chartered institutions with various state governments (in the US). A person can incorporate him/herself (therefore not a group), a non-citizen can control a corporation through share ownership, and corporations can control other corporations. The problem is with for-profit corporations influencing elections and essentially bribing elected officials with corporate profit (usually without the say-so of the shareholders), either directly through contributions or indirectly through other front corporations.
I'm all for having legal protections for companies, but there are some "rights" they just shouldn't have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I wasn´t proposing you ignore the bill of rights....I was proposing you guys change it.
No need. Corporations are never mentioned in the bill of rights, so it's just a question of whether or not the rights of citizens extend to such organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Let's see everyone line up along expected lines and throw down. Go on now, toe your respective line.
By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.
Vladimir, the "law" (actually what they call a "precedent") has already been addressed, and I don't see you responding in any way to the substance.
Toyota is majority foreign-owned. Please explain why Toyota should have the same (actually superior) rights to free speech as a U.S. citizen.
It is certainly an odd thing that laws for U.S. citizens are applied to U.S. corporations & ngo's seeing as U.S. corporations are not U.S. citizens themselves. Sure they are a legal persona (entity) but surely not equivalent to a private citizen (different kind of persona); as is evidenced by the various laws that do apply to corporations & ngo's but not to citizens and vice versa.
Fixed that for you. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
So much for democracy.
No, that's not even vaguely how it happened, and I seriously doubt you could find any sourcing to back that black helicopter theory up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
If you want to point toward anything particular from the spectacular mess that was the 2000 presidential election, it would be the Supreme Court's decision to end the process, and even that is debatable.
This sort of empty sloganeering is a distraction from the issue at hand, which is the personhood of corporations in the U.S., and their now-affirmed constitutional right to free speech.
-edit-
Looks like that socialist hippie, Thomas Jefferson, was all over this: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
It's not as if Democrats don't have companies backing them, you know.Quote:
I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.
Bush won because he won the majority in the electoral college, even though Gore won the "popular vote". These sort of things happen when you carve the electorate up in pieces and it's not specific to the US.
...
Stockholders in commercial companies can still donate from their private pockets, so I don't see a problem there. Do CEO's even ask their stockholders for permission to fund a political campaign? I can't put my finger on it, but something feels wrong here - and it's not just the amount of money concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
OTOH with non-commercial entities specificall created to advocate certain political views, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fund campaigns. Prohibiting them from even endorsing a candidate seems strange.
Why would you be so stupid to onlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
buysupport one of the candidates? :inquisitive: And should you actually face an honest candidate that opposes you, you canslanderexpress your opinion on him by proxy (which is partially the original issue, even if that was probably honest dirt).
I mean, we can now have a Glenn Beck inc. if I got the rules correctly.
I thought the Bill of Rights was created to protect the rights of the individual, as the original constitution is too government-y.
That would be a no. I suppose it could technically be claimed by the board as necessary under their fiduciary duty, but in this case it should limit the "speech" to commercial speech (with the requisite truth in advertising requirements).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
This. :yes: With the restriction of for-profit ownership/contributions to these non-commercial entities, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
This is one of those moments where I am ashamed that my government just gave me another big ole facepalm moment.
Makes sense to me. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTUS
From what I see, corporate personhood is tangential to the issue. Corporations are, simply put, associations of citizens and there's no constitutional basis for denying these groups First Amendment rights. The decision isn't saying that corporations get First Amendment protection because they are corporations- it's saying that free speech can't be denied on the basis of being a corporation as opposed to any other group of citizens.
I'm glad to see McCain-Feingold weakened.
edit:
It's worth noting that the corporation in this decision was a non-profit. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
I came here to post exactly this. I know this country is going to hell in a handbasket, but I never thought the Supreme Court would finally be the one to demolish democracy as we know it. This is...no. THere are no words for this.
I don't see how this will demolish democracy...
I don't think this will "demolish" democracy, though it most certainly will not help.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.
You really don't see what problems might arise from this?
EDIT: Not you CrossLoper
Seeing as how McCain-Feingold didn't exist prior to 2002, I think democracy will survive. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
Actually, that's untrue. You have this fancy thing known as a "vote." Unless you sell it, you're alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
If a corporation is a legal person then we need to arrest every stockholder who owns part of a corporation. Owning a person is slavery and that is unconstitutional.
Corporations are not necessarily "associations of citizens," as you well know, and nobody anywhere is suggesting that citizens should be denied any rights of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The implication of your reasoning is that corporate entities are entitled to the full protection of the first amendment. Thus they are citizens, or equivalent. I don't see how you can whistle past the obvious.
I can see the arguments against giving corporations all rights of a person.
I don't see how you can ban non-profits from advertising against/for someone if they've received money from for-profit companies, though. Trying to keep money out of politics is a battle doomed to fail. Campaign finance reform, and all the regulations that go along with it, serve mainly to help the two main political parties and incumbents prevent challengers, since you need a lawyer(s) to run for government.
Either way, I am very happy with this ruling, because it did unconstitutionally infringe on the free speech rights of non-profit advocacy organizations, in a way to help incumbents.
And the award for hyperbole of the week...goes to you!:balloon2: :balloon2: :juggle2: :clown: :balloon2: :balloon2: Congrats!Quote:
I came here to post exactly this. I know this country is going to hell in a handbasket, but I never thought the Supreme Court would finally be the one to demolish democracy as we know it. This is...no. THere are no words for this.
CR
A compromise should be something like removing personhood from corporations, while allowing them to retain some of the associated rights, while at the same time allowing them to run advertisements for, but not donate directly to, a candidate.
Again, look at the decision:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speechThis is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech. Whether the association is a corporation or a boy scout troop makes no difference to that. Yourself and the OP are just injecting one of your pet peeves (corporate personhood) into this situation where it isn't really relevant. The decision, as I read it, says that any citizen or association of citizens has the right to engage in political speech. McCain-Feingold was overruled because it singled out corporations as a specific group that would be denied free speech. I see nothing to indicate that the case would have been decided differently in the absence of corporate personhood- thus it's tangential to the issue. Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.
The same reason a foreign terrorist and an illegal combatant should be subject to a trial in US civilian court and not by military tribunal.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Note that in making your rebuttal you use the word "citizens." (Bolding mine.) You automatically assume that a corporation is a citizen, with no critical examination of what law, precedent or constitutionality underlies the basis of your own argument. (And in a feat of breathtaking illogic, assert that the foundational assumption of your argument is "tangential.") Look at the First Amendment:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So, no law abridging the freedom of speech, check. As always with law the question becomes, to whom does this apply? If we take the broadest reading, that no speech anywhere can be abridged, that means that China is constitutionally guaranteed the right to buy political ads in the U.S. Oh, China isn't a citizen, you say? The First Amendment didn't specify that it only applies to citizens. Oh you say, it's implicit that it only applies to citizens? Then what is a citizen? Again, I don't see how you can escape the blindingly obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by First Amendment
If they are "unconstitutionally denied" a right, that means they are entitled to that right, which means that they enjoy some of the privileges of citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
-edit-
I knew this was all about terrorism somehow. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
There are no mentions of corporations in the constitution, so the unconstitutionality doesn't really apply. Except for the corporate personhood aspect, so it is definitely relevant to this discussion. I also have a problem with the usage of the word "citizen", which implies even more rights to the corporation than "person".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yes but the problem arises from the fact that:
(a) A corporation is an association of stockholders;
(b) Stockholders need not be citizens;
(c) Stockholders need not be persons.
(d) Stockholders need not otherwise be affiliated with anything US-American at all.
This suggest that this First Amendment cannot apply to corporations in general. And that is completely ignoring the fact that:
(e) Corporations are not held to the same laws as other persona entities.
Things military service do not apply; taxes are a completely different ball game; and social security/ bailout seems to be remarkably one-way. A citizen is generally expected to repay his debt, but it is accepted business risk your corporate debtors may go bankrupt and its debts must be written off.
The point of the decision is that all groups are entitled to free speech. McCain-Feingold singled out corporations for speech restrictions that did not apply to other organizations. "Personhood" of the organization is not important to the underlying decision. If members of your neighborhood chipped in and rented a billboard opposing a city councilman who supported zoning changes, it'd be no problem. If your group incorporated, it could end up being illegal under McCain-Feingold. The court said that making such a distinction has no constitutional basis and they rightly overruled it.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
That's an interesting line of argument. However, our constitutional protections are typically extended to all who are legally in our country regardless of citizenship. So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over whether some stockholders may or may not be citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
So corporations, which may or may not include individual US citizens, enjoy the rights and benefits of US citizenship. They are a person.
But that person is not accountable to all US laws and sanctions. If Microsoft's CEO directs the murder of Apple's CEO, and the act is carried out by a MS employee... Given that MS is a person, entitled to freedom of speech, religion, association, press; freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, and retains the right against self-incrimination and the right to trial by a jury of (its?) peers...
should not all members of that corporation be arrested and held responsible for the murder? Every Board member, every employee, every stockholder?
Ridiculous, of course. Not every such "member" is responsible for the act.
Yet every member, by dint of having owned a share of stock or having been an employee - is accorded constitutional rights. Therefore, corporations are not merely "citizens", they are Super Citizens.
"First Among Equals".
We fought a revolution over this a few years back. Maybe we gotta again.
Bill Gates gives $2K? Fine. His opinion, his money. I give $2K? Fine too. My opinion, my money.
Microsoft or the Post Office, or John Deere Tractor Co gives $2K? Not OK in my book.
You're off by about 30 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Tell me more about your fantasy world where I have the same political influence as a multibillion dollar corporation. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
what you said is so out of touch with reality that I belive it borders on dissociation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
They can't vote. Now, I don't believe that monetary donations should be able to come from corporations themselves either, but saying that it spells the end of democracy is ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
I don't know. He presented a fairly well thought-out argument in response to a post he disagreed with. You, by contrast, called him names. Evidently we have different definitions of maturity. :dizzy2:Quote:
Unflattering reference to previous poster.
I confess, that's more than I expected from you.:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Yes, because calling me hyperbolic without addressing anything I actually said, complete with an dizzying array of emoticons, is so classy. :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
But you're half right; I should probably elaborate. Nothing - and I mean nothing - good will ever happen in this country until campaign finance reform kicks in. reference to previous poster removed; what he said is so out of touch with reality that it borders on dissociation.
More like 100, going back to Tillman Act of 1907. Talk about yer judicial activists stomping all over precedent, etcetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
Also, jbarto, it's considered bad form to name-call in the BR, unless you are very, very drunk, or can be very, very funny about it. (To be clear: CR called your comment "hyperbolic," but you called him "unflattering reference to previous poster." So you win the Unsportsmanlike Conduct Lapel Pin and Silly Hat. Never fear, it passes to another winner quickly.)
Well, Kukri is almost right there, except that the workers aren't part of a company but are resource suppliers who make contracts with a company to sell their human resources/work to the company. The shareholders however, should all be jailed.
The problem with company donations as I see it is this:
One guy earns money and decides to spend it politically as he sees fit, this is fine.
Many, many guys earn money but a small group of managers/directors decide how to spend it politically, this is not okay.
As far as the company goes the managers are chosen representatives of sort, or at least one would hope so, but giving them political decision rights using the money the whole company earned seems rather wrong to me, there's a this division of power thing for a reason so why should company managers get power in economic and political aspects? They often already got more political power than they should have anyway.
I need to read the decision before I comment more, but the idea of it makes me uncomfortable. One of the first things I thought of when I heard about the SCOTUS decision was TV commercials. A gigantic corporation (Monsanto and Wal Mart both come to mind) can afford to buy lots of tv air time to support the congresspeople they want to buy.
McCain-Feingold got the corporate money out of politics, contributions are now all from private citizens, as are political ads and the like :idea2: ....oh dear, that's not true is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The law was bad law and unconstitutional. It deserves to be struck down.
Now, Lemur's larger point -- is it PROPER to accord corporations virtually all of the rights we acknowledge as pertaining to the individual? -- is a much thornier concern.
Hyperbolic Example:
As a legal "person," can we deny Haliburton the right to keep and bear arms? Do they and should they have the right to maintain their own private defense force? It is my belief that the second ammendment precludes us from limiting the chosen armaments of any citizen. Should this be true for Exxon as well? Surely they do work in areas where a few surplus M60's or older 105mm Abrams would be useful?
In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
I'd prefer absolute transparency. If my guy in the first congressional here in the Old Dominion is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrup Grumman*, I want to KNOW that before I cast my ballot. I may actually consider that a PLUS in assessing his candidacy. Since money and politics cannot be separated, we should focus on making everyone aware of what's going on -- a difficult but not entirely insoluble problem.
* To the best of my knowledge, Rep. Wittman is a fairly standard right-of-center GOP type with no known horrific vices or foibles, I am merely using this as a hypothetical example.
Maybe Haliburton should be allowed to run for office? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Media corporations already heavily influence the electoral process, and have for years. Even with this change corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates or to political parties. Sponsors of political ads still must disclose who paid for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Along with absolute transparency I'd also like to see an effective publicly funded campaign system. At least then the tendency to legislate in favor of who is funding your campaign would be more focused on the general welfare and not specific interest groups.
Or forced to stand for jury duty, or be eligible for selective service...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Sad, but true. In my mind, the best way to limit campaign funding is to shorten the campaign. You can only blow through so much money in a couple of months, and an added bonus would be the elimination of electoral fatigue. Never going to happen, but I can dream...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That would do wonders for the numbers of those in service. It would give new meaning to the phrase "A Division of Haliburton". :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Sweet! Do I get to pick the color?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But yes, I suppose I can see the distinction there. I tender my apology to the offended parties and will take a break to cool off a bit. :sweatdrop:
I like this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
I'm in way late to this, but then again I try to stay away from the backroom for sanity's sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The answer to your question is yes and no.
Corporations are indeed collectives of citizens, and non-citizens. Witness the wonderful green card, and the H1-B visa.
As a private citizen, I can and do indeed speak out on my own behalf regarding issues confronting our nation.
As an employee of one of the world's biggest corporations, I do this at my own risk of employment. Business can and do often fire people based on their public image or reputation. You'd be surprised what the list of non-discrimination traits does NOT cover. Have pictures of you and your friends getting stupid at the bar on Facebook? Be prepared. People can and often are fired over this.
The issue I have with 'corporate personhood' is that they are controlled solely by the bigwigs at the top. My execs could decide that they all love the presidential candidate that I absolutely hate, and throw our company's weight and resources behind that person. I, as an employee, can opt either to be silent, or go along with the flow. If I stand up and say otherwise, I am subject to internal censure, and possible employment repercussions. If I am very active in supporting the other candidate, it again puts my job at risk, as there are dozens of piddly little nits that my employer could use as justification to fire me. I could possibly sue and possibly win, but if I don't it will often prove very costly for me. This is on top of the lost time and wages I get from being fired, as well as seniority, etc.
I say hell no to corporate personhood. Private citizens as individuals can and should be able to support whomever they choose within legal bounds as a matter of free speech. Throwing a business's weight behind something, esp. when employees may not agree with management's decision and are essentially powerless to do anything about it, is wrong exactly for those reasons. For the record, the "you are free to find other employment" argument is total bull and I'm utterly sick of hearing it. Finding and keeping a job in today's economy is not easy, even before everything tanked in late 09.
Well, as far as corporate personhood is concerned, the opinions of the employees don't matter. The opinions of the shareholders do. Of course, the bigwigs most likely don't care what the little fish shareholders have to say either, but the difference is key. Complaints about corporate funding to politicians belong at the shareholders meeting, not the workplace.
[QUOTE=drone;2419831]Well, as far as corporate personhood is concerned, the opinions of the employees don't matter. The opinions of the shareholders do. Of course, the bigwigs most likely don't care what the little fish shareholders have to say either, but the difference is key. Complaints about corporate funding to politicians belong at the shareholders meeting, not the workplace.[/QUOTE]
Can't disagree with that. Unfortunately, if they weight the share-holder vote in the same fashion as other votable company issues then the exercise would be pointless.
Any and all complaints about every single aspect of the corporation belongs in the workplace. All the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
:rolleyes: What a corporation does with it's profits is not for the employees to decide. Those decisions are for the owners (shareholders).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nope, it should be the employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Does your landlord tell you what to eat for dinner or what TV channel to watch? :rolleyes:
Are you paying your landlord or is he paying you? If the employees want to start a communal business, then so be it, that is their right under the free market. Good luck to them. Otherwise, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
All businesses should be communal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
In an attempt to make this so, many corporations offer stock options/ownership as part of employee benefits. So many employees are also owners. But discussion of corporate profits (which are counted after salaries/benefits) belongs to a shareholder discussion, not an employee discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Edit-> Here's one take I hadn't expected:
CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash
Quote:
Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.
Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers - and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.
Who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
A manager with a brain doesn't care where a bright idea comes from, he only cares about how bright the idea is.
Who knows what's good for a company,, the people that work there or some shareholders who've never even seen the company?
Well that's blatantly ignoring the fact that money does play a huge role in shaping the political debate. For a campaign to create an image and a message is easy. Spreading that requires a great deal of money. This simply means that money is far easier to come by for those with a Corporatist stance. Whether or not Corporatism is good or bad isn't the issue. The issue, or at least this is the way that I see it, is whether or not we should be rewarding groups for taking certain positions on topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
For the record, my own view is that elections should be entirely publicly funded with the added provision that each person may contribute to any political party they want. For-profit groups should be banned from contributing to parties. Not-For-Profit should be banned from contributing as well, but can run their own ads in support of some policy or another, without explicitly supporting a party.
I got bored and looked up his finances. He seems quite clean... though he did take quite a bit of money from various banks, but I guess everyone does these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
EDIT: Well as always the American people weigh in:
Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.That's an interesting comparison. Obviously they are not mutual exclusive, but it just goes to show that most people are not taking an extreme view either way on this (ie - banning donations, or unlimited donations). I also find the fact that those not affiliated with either party are more likely to think money isn't speech very interesting and perhaps goes some way to showing a bit of disillusionment amongst people who try to avoid out-and-out partisanship.
[...]
61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.
This is the most productive idea I've heard in ages. Short campaigns would be sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
A question for those who believe that corporations enjoy First Amendment protection; does this not also mean that they are protected by the Second Amendment? Does not Walmart then have the right to arm its employees as it sees fit on its own private property? If not why not?
All shoplifters blown to peices by a shotgun wielding cashiers, whoohoo, but wouldn't that give a lot of mess in your shop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Get double barreled ones, and you'll be able to offer buy one shell get one free deals.
That is indeed true, but that is the fault of those who do not educate themselves, rather than the fault of the campaigners. It doesn't even require much work - just a quick look at Wikipedia to see who favours what, and a bit more trawling if that doesn't turn up what one is looking for. It doesn't take more than a half hour a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Still, I don't want corporate or union subsidies to be given directly to political parties.
BINGOQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Businesses, like property, should belong to those who paid for them. To take them is theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Indeed short campaigns would be great - though hard to enforce, I suspect, without some form of unconstitutional censorship.Quote:
This is the most productive idea I've heard in ages. Short campaigns would be sweet.
A question for those who believe that corporations enjoy First Amendment protection; does this not also mean that they are protected by the Second Amendment? Does not Walmart then have the right to arm its employees as it sees fit on its own private property? If not why not?
As for your second question, the state of Washington is ahead of you:
Though this shouldn't impact employees taking their own guns to work; something most companies frown on anyway.Quote:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
That was rightfully declared censorship and unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.Quote:
For the record, my own view is that elections should be entirely publicly funded with the added provision that each person may contribute to any political party they want. For-profit groups should be banned from contributing to parties. Not-For-Profit should be banned from contributing as well, but can run their own ads in support of some policy or another, without explicitly supporting a party.
Even without corporate personhood, I can't see how limiting what a company can advertise (beyond false advertising laws) is anything but censorship.
CR
That would strongly depend on just how it was paid for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Just how is banning false advertising anything but censorship...? You're making censorship sound like a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit