View Poll Results: Should Corproations have "personhood" rights?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, corporations are just like a person

    18 18.18%
  • No, corporations are not just like a person

    81 81.82%
Page 42 of 71 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 710

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #411
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Jefferson didn't like political parties, either, but that -- and none of this -- means the Framers (of which Jefferson was NOT one, by the way) wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities.
    That is to say, none of it means the Framers wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities. Stupid dropped word.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #412
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    How would a small business have the funds necessary to buy political speech ( ads) to a degree that would compete with a large corporation?
    I didn't say they would.
    But at least now they CAN.

    As an example, suppose I was the owner of a small corporation, perhaps employing 25 people. I wanted to lobby for a political candidate who supported small business, but didn't have enough personal funds to do so, as they were all invested in my small corporation. Before this ruling, I would have no other option BUT to use personal funds. Now, I could tap into my companies advertising budget. If said money wasn't needed elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Strikes me that we can engage in this banter about corporate personhood till the cows come home. At the end of the day, the results of the ascendance of corporate power have been so pernicious that it boggles my mind that anyone would be happy about furthering an already ghastly situation. I would suggest that all political spending be limited to the average income of an American, per year. That’s it. Across the board. Period
    There are already limits on political contributions, but we hear stories all the time about possible and actual violations.

    I see no reason why the same would not follow for ads, and probably does.

    As I understand it, the law regarding political ads, before this ruling, IMO favored large corporations who could use their multitude of lawyers to find ways around such laws, or who just didn't care and could pay people to violate them in such a way that it would be hard to track.

    Now, smaller corporations can make their views known as well.
    Of course, it just got easier for large corporations to influence political ads, but I think there are various laws regarding political ads and revealing who funded them. Such information could be useful to opponents of a candidate supported by a corporation.
    Last edited by The Mark; 01-26-10 at 10:02 PM.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #413
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I didn't say they would.
    But at least now they CAN.

    As an example, suppose I was the owner of a small corporation, perhaps employing 25 people. I wanted to lobby for a political candidate who supported small business, but didn't have enough personal funds to do so, as they were all invested in my small corporation. Before this ruling, I would have no other option BUT to use personal funds. Now, I could tap into my companies advertising budget. If said money wasn't needed elsewhere.



    There are already limits on political contributions, but we hear stories all the time about possible and actual violations.

    I see no reason why the same would not follow for ads, and probably does.

    As I understand it, the law regarding political ads, before this ruling, IMO favored large corporations who could use their multitude of lawyers to find ways around such laws, or who just didn't care and could pay people to violate them in such a way that it would be hard to track.

    Now, smaller corporations can make their views known as well.
    Of course, it just got easier for large corporations to influence political ads, but I think there are various laws regarding political ads and revealing who funded them. Such information could be useful to opponents of a candidate supported by a corporation.
    Isn't it more of the same- that a consortium of big corporations will be ever more advantaged to swallow up their smaller brethren? The large corporations will just support the guy who will not enforce anti-trust regulations and will increase their ability to partake of regulatory capture vs the smaller business who will have no such advantage.

  4. #414
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Isn't it more of the same- that a consortium of big corporations will be ever more advantaged to swallow up their smaller brethren? The large corporations will just support the guy who will not enforce anti-trust regulations and will increase their ability to partake of regulatory capture vs the smaller business who will have no such advantage.
    Probably.

    But the law previous to the recent ruling only exacerbated such imbalances, IMHO.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #415
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    Isn't it more of the same- that a consortium of big corporations will be ever more advantaged to swallow up their smaller brethren? The large corporations will just support the guy who will not enforce anti-trust regulations and will increase their ability to partake of regulatory capture vs the smaller business who will have no such advantage.
    If only we had, like, elections where voters could choose instead of corporations.

  6. #416
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    That is to say, none of it means the Framers wouldn't think the Bill of Rights applies to their activities. Stupid dropped word.
    The history of corporations suggests otherwise. Corporations were formed for a public purpose and at the pleasure of the sovereign; their charter was subject to revocation when they had served their purpose. The Framers would never have imagined that such grandiose power could be granted to corporations. The 1886 decision which appeared to announce that corporations were persons, was never argued. It simply makes no sense that they could have imagined the concept of corporate personhood.

  7. #417
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    If only we had, like, elections where voters could choose instead of corporations.
    As you should know quite well, voting is not terribly meaningful if the choice is between corporate lackey red and corporate lackey blue. Take the health care debate....

  8. #418
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra View Post
    As you should know quite well, voting is not terribly meaningful if the choice is between corporate lackey red and corporate lackey blue. Take the health care debate....
    Well if everyone had vast amounts of time on their hands to research all the candidates, we could probably nominate a candidate who wasn't a corporate lackey.

    But he/she would become one shortly after entering office, most likely.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #419
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Groups do not have rights.
    No, they don't, but when individuals form a "group" this does alter their ability to exercise rights in unison. Essentially, you're saying that people should not be allowed to exercise their rights to the same end as other individuals. Why should the formation of a group preclude individuals from exercising their rights?

  10. #420
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Corporate Personhoodhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well if everyone had vast amounts of time on their hands to research all the candidates, we could probably nominate a candidate who wasn't a corporate lackey.

    But he/she would become one shortly after entering office, most likely.
    yeh, I prefer the British method of managing elections- long on discussion, short on money, rapidly executed.

Page 42 of 71 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •