This is a conversation some friends of mine are having.....very intelligent and thought provoking!
John said:The idea corporations are people imbued with natural rights didn't come from this court; juristic person-hood was decided in 1844 and it's important. Without it the government could seize their assets without due process. The problem isn't this withstanding challenge; it's that this court forgets the counterweight established - corporations are people so long as they act in the best interest of society.
Antonio said:Then the question remains, who determines what is in the best interest of society when it comes to political issues?
John said:That question will always remain - we have all sorts of representation and elections and what not and nobody is ever really satisfied. Gay marriage, abortion, health care - collective will does not exist on any of these, just vague pluralities or super-minorities (just enough votes to hold off any change in the status quo). Corporations being people isn't the problem - that they are uber-people is. I can contribute a limited amount to a campaign, but another person (say, Wayne Industries) can donate an unlimited amount. It is neither a republican nor democratic (small r and d) measure of representation.
Dana said:Is my contribution level limited? Or has that also been changed by the recent SC ruling? (Of course, in a practical sense, my contribution is limited by my earthly means, which add up to much less than Wayne Industries' yearly expenditures on grapple hooks...).
I am also curious to know how we determine what "free speech" is. Campaign commercials don't seem free to me...
Antonio said:Yeah I know all that...my question was to point out the exact things that you just listed...no one can decide so, going back to your original comment, no counterweight CAN be established. Therefore, in order to address the issue with corporations being uber-people a new Constitutional amendment would need to be adopted, because no law can supercede the current constitutional precedent that the recent ruling established...
John said:The alternative to an amendment to the constitution (difficult) is a law that deals with it from another direction - public campaign financing. The last presidential election cost over $1.1 billion dollars. Yikes! A proposal that all campaign donations be collective and distributed evenly among slated candidates without regard to party would go a long way.
Of course, there's no political will for this from the two major parties, so it will never happen.
@Dana - Free speech is what they say it is. Take that. Lowly biologists should be content they don't outlaw evolution.
Antonio said:That may solve the issue of donations but passing a law like that would actually exacerbate the imbalance...this is because wealthy corporations would finance commercials to push their agendas that are not subject to donation reform. For instance, they could run ads to promote a pro-life agenda knowing that they would be indirectly supporting a particular candidate who would pass laws that would favor their business...the politicians get elected, the corporations get their tax shelters, and the citizens who were voting for this candidate because he was pro-life get screwed because there was never any intention of taking up this polarizing issue which could be used over and over again...
Antonio said:@Dana-dont think that they won't outlaw evolution in textbooks if the texas school board has anything to say about it!
John said:And that would be different from today how? Abortion got hijacked by the Republican party in the 70's and they are still riding it. Even when they held both houses and the white house they didn't move to so much as challenge Roe v. Wade. The idea that you cannot attack the wisdom of the Supreme Court is a talking point - challenge laws are written every year in this country.
Reduction of influence for corporate money can be done by eliminating 501c3's - at least then they cannot write it off.
I've always wondered if a shareholder lawsuit challenging the use of corporate funds would work. Your example of pro-life would certainly pierce the corporate veil because what company could justify the use of shareholder money for such a personal issue?
Antonio said:It would different because before the ruling large corps and orgs could not fund them very close to the election itself. There was a cutoff. This ruling looked at the hillary movie and determined that the cutoff was inhibiting free speech in the political process...so it is very different now...it changed established law...you see THIS was the challenge to law and it won...there is no way they are going to change it back without a change in the Justice roster. I like the idea about eliminating 501c3's...the prolife issue may be a stretch but I'm sure there are other issues that could be used since so many are code word issues for certain parties...AND do you think many shareholders are going to really mind enough to sue if they are profiting from a beneficial relationship between a corp and a politician?
John said:That's the beauty of a shareholder suit - it only takes one person holding one share to file it.
Antonio said:It would different because before the ruling large corps and orgs could not fund them very close to the election itself. There was a cutoff. This ruling looked at the hillary movie and determined that the cutoff was inhibiting free speech in the political process...so it is very different now...it changed established law...you see THIS was the challenge to law and it won...there is no way they are going to change it back without a change in the Justice roster. I like the idea about eliminating 501c3's...the prolife issue may be a stretch but I'm sure there are other issues that could be used since so many are code word issues for certain parties...AND do you think many shareholders are going to really mind enough to sue if they are profiting from a beneficial relationship between a corp and a politician?