Yes, corporations are just like a person
No, corporations are not just like a person
But that does not discount my point.
The employees work for the corporation to earn their pay, and the corporation pays them for their work.
With corporate funds.
As soon as said corporate funds are paid to the employee, they cease to become corporate funds...But it is still "access" to such funds.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Again, I was responding to his views in general, not the issue of personhood. Read his posts.Shall we look back at the vote tally on all of those "personhood" verdicts to see if even one judge dissented on them or would you prefer to withdraw that statement?
Only if you believe in corporate personhood. Otherwise, the economy should serve the people. Businesses are the engine of the economy but the people should be the owners of the ecomony just like a business owner is the owner of said business and the employees are the engine of that business. In our corporatocracy the people are simply consumers. We have lost control of our ecomony and now everything we do is for the benefit of corporations with the failed Reaganomics mantra of -what's good for corporations is good for the people.- We've seen time and again that this is not true and the evidence today is more clear than it's been since the 1920s. The stock market is up, productivity is up, wages are down and unemployment is up. We bailed out Wall Street to stop the damage, all of which proves that Reaganomics doesn't actually work.Both, as they are one and the same.
Yup.Obviously, some actions a corporation makes can cause harm to individuals or communities.
Nope. More often than not it's the policies of the corporation that allowed the individuals to do the actions and then the corporation promptly tries to cover it up. History provides us these facts.Additionally obvious is that those actions can be attributed to individuals working for said corporation.
So you DO see the problem and you agree that corps need regulation to keep them from doing harm to the economy.Our laws against such need reinforcement in some places, and perhaps rewriting (i.e. legislation) in others. And such laws need to be strictly enforced. Consequences need to be known and harsh, to discourage corporations from doing such.
You say it's not a problem of corporations and then tell us that corporations do "influence" politicians. So the bribing or blackmailing isn't the problem it's the guys who accept the bribes or go along with the blackmail. I say it's a problem with BOTH.This is not a problem of corporations. This is a problem of politicians.
Sure, corporations might be influencing politicians to an extent, and in some cases, a great extent. Their constituents need to fire them, if necessary.
Seriously, you are really grasping at straws.But corporate influence of politicians is simply a extension of individual influence, namely by those who control said corporation.
Who's free speech? The owner of the corporation or the corporations themselves? We know the owner has free speech as a person/citizen. If that owner was unemployed and didn't own the corporation would he still have his free speech protected? According to what you just said, the owner would have no free speech if he didn't own a corporation.To take away the use of their funds is to take away part of their free speech.
I think a considerable portion of the concern over this ruling is the notion that people with a lot of money can buy elections--they can produce messages that leave false impressions but that saturate the political sphere. Anyone believe that?
The unbridled ability to communicate in proportion to one's wealth is bad for politics, assuming we believe that elections can be purchased by those who can dominate political communication.