Reply With Quote
That's a bit strained IMO, but it makes sense semantically. I tend to doubt this language was crafted with chartered corporations in mind, but retroactively it makes sense to point to this.
Corporations are creatures of the states, not the US Cons ution, and in principle are limitable at will by the soveriegn. That was the 19th century view, at least.
That's a bit strained IMO, but it makes sense semantically. I tend to doubt this language was crafted with chartered corporations in mind, but retroactively it makes sense to point to this.
I don't have a problem with having a regulatory framework, I persoanlly don't think outright prohibition is the answer. For example, I'm fairly sure that nobody would complain about a corporation ad extolling a candidate's good points. It's normally the negative stuff that's the problem.
lol. I'm not ok with anyone lying. But, I'm not going to limit people's freedom of speech because someone might lie to me.
Are you?
Or, are you thinking that freedom of speech is ok, but elections are too imporant to totally allow that freedom during one?
Last edited by SouthernFried; 01-21-2010 at 02:16 PM.
I think that definition gives them enough wiggle room to overturn an outright ban. I'm not sure they could use it to prevent stricter regulation though.
There are many cases where the people behind the corporation (remember, there are people there) are held responsible for actions...individually. People go to jail, not the corporation. What's the name of that corporation that spent the employees retirement funds (no, not Congress, lol)...it was in Houston? Oh, yeah...Enron. People did jail time, not the corporation.
Corporations are people. As such, they have the same right as...well, people.
Try to form a corporation in Texas without a Director?
A real life people person must form a corporation, not some non-en y. Corporations are people too.
In essence, Southernfried, SnC and (retracted), seem to be arguing that Goldman Sachs, AIG, the car companies, the crappy banks and brokers, and all manner of special interests, deserve the same consideration as ordinary US citizens.
Hah!
If only ordinary US citizens had it so good.
Corporations are not people. I can create a LLC tomorrow, and I can declare it bankrupt one hour later, even though myself personally are not bankrupt. They're a great instruments to take a gamble with without putting yourself personally on the line.There are many cases where the people behind the corporation (remember, there are people there
Corporations are people. As such, they have the same right as...well, people.
Try to form a corporation in Texas without a Director?
A real life people person must form a corporation, not some non-en y. Corporations are people too.
And if Corps would be the same as people, there would be no reason for them to exist as an en y, they would be redundant. That's simply not the case.
Contrary to Winehole's popular belief...corporations are made up of people. Ordinary, everyday, flesh and blood people.
So, yes...they deserve the same consideration as "ordinary US citizens."
Unless, of course, they aren't US citizens...then they deserve a swift kick in the butt. Unless it's one of those swedish underwear models. Then they probably deserve a little more.
I do think elections are important enough to protect.
You can't create a corporation tomorrow...without you.
You are a people, right?
No. I don't equate corporations to people. That's a separate argument. I just think that under the freedom of association definition on the 1st amendment they have a case to overturn a complete ban.
Are trade unions made up of ordinary US citizens?
So basically corporations are synthetic individuals with (some) Bill of Rights protections, no?
We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
*and GE, Microsoft, IBM,....
Then we're agreed. No limits on Free speech, before, during, or after an election.
Welcome aboard.
Doesn't matter. The liability is on the company, not the individual. That is the entire purpose of the corporation construct. Plus, there's plenty of 'parent company of' or 'subsidiary of' companies out there. A mere name and signature doesn't imply personal liability.
sigh...
Go look up a corporate charter. Any corporate charter.
Guess what you'll find.
People.
People's names.
...and so it goes.
Or perhaps 'modified' BoR protections?
Corps are chartered to do business, not politics.
At least in theory.
I can see not limiting or prohibiting the expenditures of political advocacy groups.
Of course, some for-profit corps have traditionally enjoyed 1st amendment protection (ie media).
I was pointing out the silver lining for trade unions too in the relevant SC decision
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-21-2010 at 02:33 PM. Reason: trade unions, too
And your point is? If you have any claims against said company, good luck finding a judge that let you file a suit against the names on the charter instead of the actual Company...
I've already cited you a case of "Non liability" being a misnomer. Enron's execs were held liable.
And we're agreed. People are behind every corporation.
You are just citing the limited liability of the individuals in that corporation. Not only did I cite where individuals are held accountable in a corporation...but you just cited that "individuals" in that corportion (and they all have individuals) are not held liable.
It's an admission, tho back door...that yes, there are individuals there.
...they just are tryin to kinda/sorta hide from lawyers.
ok...
Welcome aboard
Public Election Funding fwiw.
Does anyone here honestly believe that corporate/union money wasn't already involved in politics? There isn't going to be some massive influx of corporate/union money into politics because that money was already there and would have continued to be there regardless of how the court ruled. In that sense, today's ruling isn't anything other than symbolic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
