Resolution Calling to Amend the Constitution Banning Corporate Personhood

[Jenne]

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)

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.

[Requia ☣]

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.

[LMNO]

Wait, you're looking for an ad that says "Coca-Cola endorses Sarah Palin"?


Now you're just being foolish.

[Requia ☣]

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.

[LMNO]

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.

[Requia ☣]

PACs are not allowed to take corporate money, nor is the general GOP fund.

[Jenne]

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.

[Jenne]

PACs are not allowed to take corporate money, nor is the general GOP fund.

?

How do they lobby so easily, then?  Oh, that's right--they PAY someone to do it!

[Luna]

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/

The 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.

[LMNO]

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.

THAT'S THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF A PAC.  ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID ON ACCOUNT OF STUPIDITY, OR DELIBERATE DECEPTION.

[Requia ☣]

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.

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.

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.

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/

The 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.

[Jenne]

@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: 

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.

[Requia ☣]

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

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.

[Jenne]

Oh for chrissakes.

[LMNO]

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.