An interesting conversation

DaveNay · Jan 26, 2010

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?

California · Jan 26, 2010

Interesting. I think with this week's Supreme Court ruling, we have seen the biggest case of Judicial Activism since... what? That is hardly status quo conservatism, to suddenly hand the whole election system over to the highest bidder.

jpr62902 · Jan 27, 2010

California said:
to suddenly hand the whole election system over to the highest bidder.

Have you not been in the US for the last 4 or 5 presidential elections?

California · Jan 27, 2010

Yeah. Only now it has been declared legal, by the Supremes.

I don't see why the conservatives aren't rioting in the streets after such a radical overthrow of what had been 'law'.

jpr62902 · Jan 27, 2010

California said:
Yeah. Only now it has been declared legal, by the Supremes.

I don't see why the conservatives aren't rioting in the streets after such a radical overthrow of what had been 'law'.

Correction. Additional forms of it have been declared legal by the SCOTUS.

Perhaps conservatives aren't "rioting in the streets after such a radical overthrow of what had been 'law'", because what's actually occured is a return to "law" and not the overthrow thereof?

California · Jan 27, 2010

I thought the concept of corporations as persons with human rights came subsequent to the founding fathers. ???

jpr62902 · Jan 27, 2010

California said:
I thought the concept of corporations as persons with human rights came subsequent to the founding fathers. ???

Are corporations not "persons", and therefore not entitled to freedom of speech?

California · Jan 28, 2010

jpr62902 said:
Are corporations not "persons", and therefore not entitled to freedom of speech?

How long will it take after this ruling, before one of these free-speech persons runs for Congress?

jpr62902 · Jan 28, 2010

California said:
How long will it take after this ruling, before one of these free-speech persons runs for Congress?

Since you linked to the Kos kids, here's some info on different types of "persons."

http://www.aul.org/personhood

California · Jan 28, 2010

I couldn't find the part about foreign (or multinational) corporations' freedom of speech, their new freedom to spend in support of US political campaigns, or to stand for public office. Will heavy campaign spending by vendors who sell exclusively to the US government, or to US military, be wide open under this ruling? What might be a countervailing force?

Were you trying to switch the focal point to something else? :biggrin:

JEV · Jan 29, 2010

California said:
I thought the concept of corporations as persons with human rights came subsequent to the founding fathers. ???

To use your own words, the majority voted "for" it...get over it. Funny how when just the left leaning organizations were doing it (unions and pseudo non-profits) that it was just fine. Now that the field has been leveled, you got you left coast undies in a bunch. Have you come down from cloud nine after your messiah's SOTU tall tales? He should really enter an anger management clinic and learn that not everyone really cares for his radical ideas. Since he avoided the terrorist issues all together, it appears he may be deeper in bed with radical Muslims than had been thought. He should have at least said SOMETHING so wouldn't be so obvious that he was avoiding the issue. Perhaps we should check his Yemen connections to see who is really controlling this puppets strings.

jpr62902 · Jan 29, 2010

California said:
I couldn't find the part about foreign (or multinational) corporations' freedom of speech, their new freedom to spend in support of US political campaigns, or to stand for public office.

Are you saying the Citizens United decision permits this?

California said:
Will heavy campaign spending by vendors who sell exclusively to the US government, or to US military, be wide open under this ruling? What might be a countervailing force?

Not sure what you're asking here.

California said:
Were you trying to switch the focal point to something else?

Who? Me?

Actually, I was just pointing out that there are different kinds of "persons" in a legal sense.

Doc · Jan 29, 2010

The way I see it not much has changed. Now they can run the ads openly where before they funneled their money to some group who would run it for them. For every law there seems to be a loophole.

muleman · Jan 29, 2010

Doc said:
The way I see it not much has changed. Now they can run the ads openly where before they funneled their money to some group who would run it for them. For every law there seems to be a loophole.

Ask George Soros about funneling through other groups.

An interesting conversation

DaveNay

Klaatu barada nikto

California

Charter Member

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

California

Charter Member

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

California

Charter Member

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

California

Charter Member

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

California

Charter Member

JEV

Mr. Congeniality

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer

Doc

Bottoms Up

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten