Resolution Calling to Amend the Constitution Banning Corporate Personhood Introduced in Vermont
http://www.addictinginfo.org/?p=889
Damn good read.
Hardly surprising that this came out of Vermont.
It's doomed, though.
Good going, Vermont.
Now stop acting like hippies and get it done.
Corporate people need to go. It's a threat to the government itself. Profit maximizing firms have no particular reason not to overthrow the government once they're powerful enough that the benefits outweigh the costs.
There's currently a show on NBC here in the US that has this idea as their premise. It's not all that great a show, but it is interesting how they weave the "evil corporation takes over all public works" base into the storyline. Evil corporation personhood run amok.
Oh, it's called "The Cape."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 28, 2011, 07:26:25 PM
Hardly surprising that this came out of Vermont.
It's doomed, though.
Also, THIS.
Quote from: Jenne on February 28, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
There's currently a show on NBC here in the US that has this idea as their premise. It's not all that great a show, but it is interesting how they weave the "evil corporation takes over all public works" base into the storyline. Evil corporation personhood run amok.
Oh, it's called "The Cape."
I've seen ads, and wasn't impressed enough to check it out. Something about magic clothing that give you superpowers, and carnys?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 28, 2011, 07:34:39 PM
Quote from: Jenne on February 28, 2011, 07:33:01 PM
There's currently a show on NBC here in the US that has this idea as their premise. It's not all that great a show, but it is interesting how they weave the "evil corporation takes over all public works" base into the storyline. Evil corporation personhood run amok.
Oh, it's called "The Cape."
I've seen ads, and wasn't impressed enough to check it out. Something about magic clothing that give you superpowers, and carnys?
Yes, I blame terminal boredom and my current comic-turned-Hollywood fetish I have going on. But, the fact they make ARK, the company that now runs the city, into this monstrosity entity that can be blamed for just about everything going wrong was interesting to me.
And of course it started out as a BIOTECH company.
My girl and I are watching the Cape. I actually quite like it. It's like if they made an old-skool Adam West-as-batman low budget super hero show with today's TV effects. Some of it's hokey, some of the plot is see-through (what, you didn't think Scooby Doo is an actual Mystery show, did you?), but it's pulling off what they wanted to do with Heroes (y'know, a comic book super hero.... not Survivor: Super Hero Island).
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 28, 2011, 07:30:52 PM
Corporate people need to go. It's a threat to the government itself. Profit maximizing firms have no particular reason not to overthrow the government once they're powerful enough that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Why overthrow it, when you can just
lease it? It's cheaper, and it leaves handy scapegoats lying around.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 28, 2011, 08:15:53 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 28, 2011, 07:30:52 PM
Corporate people need to go. It's a threat to the government itself. Profit maximizing firms have no particular reason not to overthrow the government once they're powerful enough that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Why overthrow it, when you can just lease it? It's cheaper, and it leaves handy scapegoats lying around.
This is the correct corporate sponsored motorcycle!
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Yup. Pretty much.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Non-corporate businesses still pay taxes.
FFS.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 28, 2011, 09:53:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Non-corporate businesses still pay taxes.
FFS.
And get sued.
That's one of the main reasons TO incorporate, to keep one lawsuit from taking not just your business but your home and all of your personal assets.
Quote from: Luna on February 28, 2011, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 28, 2011, 09:53:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Non-corporate businesses still pay taxes.
FFS.
And get sued.
That's one of the main reasons TO incorporate, to keep one lawsuit from taking not just your business but your home and all of your personal assets.
I know. It's just that the incorrect pedantry has gone from hilarious to annoying.
I'm curious roger, what exactly do you think revoking corporate personhood would do?
Limit corporate campaign contributions?
Or am I way off base on that one?
Trolling thought the wikipedia page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
It seems a big one would be invoking 5th Amendment rights to refuse to hand over incriminating evidence.
Edit: didn't read the whole thing, that wasn't upheld.
Bah, complex legal fiction bullshit.
Quote from: Luna on February 28, 2011, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 28, 2011, 09:53:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Non-corporate businesses still pay taxes.
FFS.
And get sued.
That's one of the main reasons TO incorporate, to keep one lawsuit from taking not just your business but your home and all of your personal assets.
Word.
I don't know how Requia can be so consistently
wrong.
[Read a bit more] The abilities of Corporations to act as "Artificial Persons" goes back to 16th Century British law.
QuoteIt should be understood that the term 'artificial person' was in long use, prior to the Dartmouth College decision, and was in principle distinct from any contention that corporations have the rights of natural persons. 'Artificial person' was used because there were certain resemblances, in law, between a natural person and corporations. Both could be parties in a lawsuit; both could be taxed; both could be constrained by law. In fact the corporations had been called artificial persons by courts in England as early as the 16th century because lawyers for the corporations had asserted they could not be convicted under the English laws of the time because the laws were worded "No person shall...."
So, that does away with those issues. The main issue presented here is that recently (since the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) the corporate layers have been invoking numbered Amendments in the name of corporations "as persons" (Rights that have been traditionally afforded only to Natural Persons). The whole Money = Free Speech thing. But these aren't Rights...... they are privileges, and the corporate leverage of these have nearly totally fucked our political system.
I'm OK with corporate personhood...so long as every other kind of organization can apply for personhood as well.
Quote from: Cain on March 01, 2011, 06:24:05 AM
I'm OK with corporate personhood...so long as every other kind of organization can apply for personhood as well.
Like, say, religions? :pax:
http://cramul.us/2010/09/postergasm-disinfomercials/
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 10:09:50 PM
I'm curious roger, what exactly do you think revoking corporate personhood would do?
a nice benefit would be that foreign corporations would have a cap on how much money they can dump into our electoral process.
We individuals cannot hope to compete with the buying power of a corporation - when it comes to investing in politics, individual citizens have no voice, the only voice that matters is the booming bankrolls of a legal fiction.
Last January, Roger hit the nail on the head: Voting seems rather inefficient now, doesn't it? We should just have "democrat products" and "republican products" - whichever one gets more sales will win the election.
It's a lot like the justice system. We have this great idea of liberty and justice for all. But in reality it comes down to who can afford justice - or rather, who can afford to be above it. It's hard to win a legal battle against a big corporation - they have lots of time and resources, us real people do not. The free speech of individuals gets trumped all the time if an artist is commenting on a brand protected by powerful lawyers. Corporate personhood ultimately means that
this country is not for us. It's designed so that the strong corporations can prosper, not individual citizens, unless they happen to be standing on top of a legal fiction. We're just the pit crew.
Quote from: Cainad on March 01, 2011, 01:48:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 01, 2011, 06:24:05 AM
I'm OK with corporate personhood...so long as every other kind of organization can apply for personhood as well.
Like, say, religions? :pax:
Absolutely. Religions, unions, NGOs, the lot of them.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 01, 2011, 02:42:39 PM
http://cramul.us/2010/09/postergasm-disinfomercials/
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 10:09:50 PM
I'm curious roger, what exactly do you think revoking corporate personhood would do?
a nice benefit would be that foreign corporations would have a cap on how much money they can dump into our electoral process.
We individuals cannot hope to compete with the buying power of a corporation - when it comes to investing in politics, individual citizens have no voice, the only voice that matters is the booming bankrolls of a legal fiction.
Last January, Roger hit the nail on the head: Voting seems rather inefficient now, doesn't it? We should just have "democrat products" and "republican products" - whichever one gets more sales will win the election.
It's a lot like the justice system. We have this great idea of liberty and justice for all. But in reality it comes down to who can afford justice - or rather, who can afford to be above it. It's hard to win a legal battle against a big corporation - they have lots of time and resources, us real people do not. The free speech of individuals gets trumped all the time if an artist is commenting on a brand protected by powerful lawyers. Corporate personhood ultimately means that this country is not for us. It's designed so that the strong corporations can prosper, not individual citizens, unless they happen to be standing on top of a legal fiction. We're just the pit crew.
Foreign corporations aren't allowed in that I'm aware of, except through the private funds of the employees.
While I agree that the other things you say, I don't see how corporate personhood is a cause of the problems (except maybe artists getting sued by corporations, hard to do that if there's no right to file a lawsuit).
have you seen something which indicates foreign-owned companies operating in America are capped in how much they can donate to a campaign?
Either way, foreign or not, that shit should be capped so that flesh-and-blood citizens who don't have billions of dollars can play politics too.
Obama on Corporate Personhood:
"this decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money -- literally millions of dollars -- to affect elections throughout our country. This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government."
No corporation, labor union, federal contractor or foreign national may donate more than 0$ to a campaign. The whole thing about the Citizen's United case changing that was media hysteria.
CU changed the rules about spending money related to the election, but not donations themselves (it also explicitly did not change the rules for foreign corporations). I've also been unable to find evidence that a significant amount of corporate money was ever spent that way (after all corporations can found PACs and use the money of whoever they can dupe into donating, costs less than spending their own money). There's been a lot of talk on the news about how the Chamber of Commerce spent record amounts of money last election, but the CoC was never effected by the McCain-Feingold ammendment in the first place.
While I do admit the threat of some corporation spending a few million dollars on ads to change the outcome of the election is real (whether or not it's happened in the past), the easiest solution is to rewrite the McCain Feingold ammendment to have tighter language (which was recommended by the courts) to prevent spillover into things that weren't advertisements like in the CU case (they wanted to put their movie for sale on Comcast on Demand, not take out ads).
The real issue with campaign financing is that the cap on private donations is too high, it's easy for a rich man or a PAC to spend 2400 dollars on 20 different politicians (twice, since they can donate in the primaries and general election separately) for a total of nearly a hundred thousand in campaign contributions. Drop the cap down to 100$ or so and you put the rich on more even footing with the middle class.
from enki
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/03/01/in-att-case-chief-justice-roberts-has-a-little-fun-at-companys-expense/
Yeah, I saw that as well. It's a sad day when a company argues a point that even Roberts finds too much to take seriously.
Quote from: Luna on February 28, 2011, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 28, 2011, 09:53:40 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 28, 2011, 09:26:06 PM
Ban corporate personhood: Because what we really want is to take away the corporate right to pay taxes and get sued.
Non-corporate businesses still pay taxes.
FFS.
And get sued.
That's one of the main reasons TO incorporate, to keep one lawsuit from taking not just your business but your home and all of your personal assets.
Ah, good points, I didn't think about that. (and I'm all for taking away a corporation's personhood, personally, I wasn't being sarcastic in my reply above)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 01, 2011, 07:52:53 PM
No corporation, labor union, federal contractor or foreign national may donate more than 0$ to a campaign. The whole thing about the Citizen's United case changing that was media hysteria.
snip
While I do admit the threat of some corporation spending a few million dollars on ads to change the outcome of the election is real (whether or not it's happened in the past), the easiest solution is to rewrite the McCain Feingold ammendment to have tighter language (which was recommended by the courts) to prevent spillover into things that weren't advertisements like in the CU case (they wanted to put their movie for sale on Comcast on Demand, not take out ads).
The real issue with campaign financing is that the cap on private donations is too high, it's easy for a rich man or a PAC to spend 2400 dollars on 20 different politicians (twice, since they can donate in the primaries and general election separately) for a total of nearly a hundred thousand in campaign contributions. Drop the cap down to 100$ or so and you put the rich on more even footing with the middle class.
Requia, I'm sort of confused--do you think that corporations HAVEN'T been contributing through their lobbyists, etc. to campaigns? Because they have. And they contribute to the funding of ads against bills they don't like, etc. And the "easiest" solution? Well, getting that sort of bill changed AT ALL is never EASY, at all.
Cram's posts are spot-on--and it seems (I remember reading about this a couple of years ago) that foreign interests have, on the sly, been funding political campaigns, etc., all the way along. It's just usually funnelled through someone/somewhere else and not as easily traceable.
Rewriting the bill sounds a hell of a lot easier than getting a constitutional ammendment passed.
Corporations used to donate a lot of money to campaigns and PACs, they were required to stop (and that hasn't changed). There could be shady accounting practices letting them get around it (which would be an enforcement problem, or a problem with the accounting laws, not a problem with the campaign financing laws) , but usually when people cry foul about a corporation giving money to a candidate it's really the employees of that corporation giving.
The part you bolded, I'm referring to the fact I cannot find a single instance, ever, of a corporation running an ad for or against a candidate. This could easily be my own lack of research skills, but I hold that its for the opponents of the CU decision to demonstrate that there's actually an issue involved.
As to the non corporate businesses getting sued and paying taxes, they don't. The owners of those businesses have to deal with that. As Luna points out, incorporating deflects the issue onto the corporation.
Wait, you're looking for an ad that says "Coca-Cola endorses Sarah Palin"?
Now you're just being foolish.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm looking for any evidence, period, of a corporation running an ad for a candidate. Nobody seems to have any.
Then define terms:
Qualify "running an ad".
Anyway, most corporate money goes to a general GOP fund, or through a PAC devoted to a candidate.
PACs are not allowed to take corporate money, nor is the general GOP fund.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2011, 06:58:50 PM
Rewriting the bill sounds a hell of a lot easier than getting a constitutional ammendment passed.
Corporations used to donate a lot of money to campaigns and PACs, they were required to stop (and that hasn't changed). There could be shady accounting practices letting them get around it (which would be an enforcement problem, or a problem with the accounting laws, not a problem with the campaign financing laws) , but usually when people cry foul about a corporation giving money to a candidate it's really the employees of that corporation giving.
The part you bolded, I'm referring to the fact I cannot find a single instance, ever, of a corporation running an ad for or against a candidate. This could easily be my own lack of research skills, but I hold that its for the opponents of the CU decision to demonstrate that there's actually an issue involved.
As to the non corporate businesses getting sued and paying taxes, they don't. The owners of those businesses have to deal with that. As Luna points out, incorporating deflects the issue onto the corporation.
Dude. You're being a little nitpicky. I mean, not a little, a LOT.
1) Once a bill is passed, one that's in this tenor, it's fucking hell and back to get anything re-written. More like they will repeal or it will get shot down or nuanced in court. So it's "as easy as" getting a fucking amendment.
2) Corporations, through their unions, lobbyists AND CEOs/employees donate MILLIONS to campaigns. They fund PACs all over the place. Period. If that's not the same thing, I don't know what is, man.
3) See #2 for your lack of research abilities. To get around the laws, of course they are using an entity that is not the direct company but an offshoot. Come on, corporations are smarter than that! They've got loopholes, they use 'em! But that doesn't make their unions/lobbyists/PACs any less powerful...
4) Same diff, eh? Owner of company will go bankrupt just like company will, but the risk they personally carry is HUGE, especially when borrowing money. It BEHOOVES folks to incorporate so they protect themselves personally, but they are broke if the company goes belly up and pay taxes on income, in both scenarios. Not sure what the disagreement on this point is.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2011, 07:19:07 PM
PACs are not allowed to take corporate money, nor is the general GOP fund.
:cn:?
How do they lobby so easily, then? Oh, that's right--they PAY someone to do it!
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2011, 07:09:02 PM
Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm looking for any evidence, period, of a corporation running an ad for a candidate. Nobody seems to have any.
Jesus. Thirty seconds on Google.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-primary-elections/the-first-corporate-ad/
QuoteThe first political ads bought by a corporation in Texas appeared in East Texas newspapers just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the state's ban on that kind of spending.
The ads appear to mark the first instance of a corporation directly playing in a Texas election since the nation's highest court lifted a century-old ban on political spending by corporations and labor unions.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2011, 07:19:07 PM
PACs are not allowed to take corporate money, nor is the general GOP fund.
Are you daft?
When an interest group, union, or corporation wants to contribute to federal candidates or parties, it must do so through a PAC. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee)
THAT'S THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF A PAC. ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID ON ACCOUNT OF STUPIDITY, OR DELIBERATE DECEPTION.
Quote from: Jenne on March 02, 2011, 07:19:34 PM
Dude. You're being a little nitpicky. I mean, not a little, a LOT.
1) Once a bill is passed, one that's in this tenor, it's fucking hell and back to get anything re-written. More like they will repeal or it will get shot down or nuanced in court. So it's "as easy as" getting a fucking amendment.
2) Corporations, through their unions, lobbyists AND CEOs/employees donate MILLIONS to campaigns. They fund PACs all over the place. Period. If that's not the same thing, I don't know what is, man.
3) See #2 for your lack of research abilities. To get around the laws, of course they are using an entity that is not the direct company but an offshoot. Come on, corporations are smarter than that! They've got loopholes, they use 'em! But that doesn't make their unions/lobbyists/PACs any less powerful...
4) Same diff, eh? Owner of company will go bankrupt just like company will, but the risk they personally carry is HUGE, especially when borrowing money. It BEHOOVES folks to incorporate so they protect themselves personally, but they are broke if the company goes belly up and pay taxes on income, in both scenarios. Not sure what the disagreement on this point is.
1) You seriously think its harder to get a new law passed than to change the constitution?
2) If you have evidence that a corporation or union is donating money to a PAC or candidate, then report it, its a fucking felony. I'm less certain of what you mean by lobbyists giving them money (bribes? the individual lobbyists donating private funds?). Yes the rich employees of corporations donate a hell of a lot, this is a huge problem (I think I already talked about it). It has nothing to do with corporate personhood though, as they are acting as private citizen's when they do so. Or are you suggesting that a person (the breathing bipedal kind) should not be allowed to join in to the political process simply because of who they work for or how high up the corporate ladder they are? An inelegant solution but a workable one. Still, corporate personhood has no real effect.
3) Again, these are enforcement issues on felony actions, removing corporate personhood doesn't affect them one way or the other.
4) The point of disagreement is what happens if you can no longer sue the owner of a business (because it's a corporation) and the corporation itself (since its no longer an artificial person and thus not subject to being sued).
I suppose I am being nitpicky, I find this somewhat necessary, since we're talking about changing a nitpicky area of the law.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 02, 2011, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2011, 07:19:07 PM
PACs are not allowed to take corporate money, nor is the general GOP fund.
Are you daft?
When an interest group, union, or corporation wants to contribute to federal candidates or parties, it must do so through a PAC. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee)
THAT'S THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF A PAC. ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID ON ACCOUNT OF STUPIDITY, OR DELIBERATE DECEPTION.
PACs can be
controlled by corporations. They can't be funded by them. I already pointed out numerous corporations manipulate the system via PACs and somebody else's money.
Quote from: Luna on March 02, 2011, 07:21:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 02, 2011, 07:09:02 PM
Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm looking for any evidence, period, of a corporation running an ad for a candidate. Nobody seems to have any.
Jesus. Thirty seconds on Google.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-primary-elections/the-first-corporate-ad/
QuoteThe first political ads bought by a corporation in Texas appeared in East Texas newspapers just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the state's ban on that kind of spending.
The ads appear to mark the first instance of a corporation directly playing in a Texas election since the nation's highest court lifted a century-old ban on political spending by corporations and labor unions.
Interesting. I acknowledge the problem.
I still fail to see eliminating freedom of the press as a viable solution to the problem, but I acknowledge it.
@Requia,
1. I said "as easy as" for a hot button topic like this. Esp as corporations have the upper hand.
2. Bullshit. I think you have faulty info on this. I repeat: :cn:
3. EH...in a case like my dad's, I'm not sure you're entirely correct, here. And in that case, if said corporation has some MAJOR players who used to work for it in Congress, you bet your sweet bippy that it makes a difference vis a vis prosecution and the whole nine yards.
4. You can sue whomever you damned well please, it's a matter of a VIABLE suit that will WIN that's at issue, as always.
I take your point about being nitpicky, I just think you're totally wrong on PACs, corporations, and who funds them.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Prohibited_Contributions
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/ssfvnonconnected.shtml
Quote
The Act prohibits corporations (profit or nonprofit), labor organizations and incorporated membership organizations from making direct contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections. 2 U.S.C. §44lb. These organizations may, however, sponsor a separate segregated fund (SSF), popularly called a PAC, which collects contributions from a limited class of individuals and uses this money to make contributions and expenditures to influence federal elections. 11 CFR 100.6. As the sponsor of the SSF (i.e., its "connected organization"), the corporation, labor organization or incorporated membership organization may absorb all the costs of establishing and operating the SSF and soliciting contributions to it. These administrative expenses are fully exempted from the Act's definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure." 11 CFR 114.1(a)(2)(iii).
Something I should point out, even if corporations are somehow allowed to donate to PACs (actually, they sort of can since they can fund the operating costs, just not the expenditures like giving money to a candidate or taking out ads), that's because its legal, not anything to do with CU or corporate personhood.
Oh for chrissakes.
Requia, I hope you don't equate killing a thread with your ponderous pedantry as "winning". But you must, because you do it so often.
It's pedantry if somebody asks for a citation and I provide it?