People vs. Corporations

[Noodlegawd]

Um, immortality?

Wealth and power?

What can't it control?

It can't control anything. Everything a corporation does is done by the people that comprise it.

 

[Aberration]

On one hand the law saws what is obviously a person is not, so we can deny them rights and kill them.

On the other hand the law says with is obviously not a person is a person to convey them rights.

Personhood is a legal fabrication.

 

[eman623]

No, they don't. Individuals possess rights, not things.

True, except when the thing is a voluntary association of people.

 

[eman623]

Thats not what i mean. Those individuals have the rights but the corporation itself should not be considered a person.

Maybe not, but a corporation has the same right of free speech as its members. People do not lose their free speech rights when they come together in a voluntary association.

 

[eman623]

It's actually a good thing people don't lose their free speech rights when they come together in voluntary association. Otherwise, the following could be considered illegal political advocacy by a group whose only reason for existence is to influence public opinion. After all, only individual people have the right of free speech, right?

STATEMENT OF AUTONOMY
PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT OCCUPY WALL STREET. NOVEMBER 10, 2011 AND PASSED REVISION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT OCCUPY WALL STREET, MARCH 3, 2012.

Occupy Wall Street is a people's movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand. It is not for sale.

We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence. We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory as opposed to partisan debate and democracy. We welcome dissent.

Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at May First/People Link should be considered independent of Occupy Wall Street.

We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization. Our only affiliation is with the people.

The people who are working together to create this movement are its sole and mutual caretakers. If you have chosen to devote resources to building this movement, especially your time and labor, then it is yours.

Any organization is welcome to support us with the knowledge that doing so will mean questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into your modes of action.

SPEAK WITH US, NOT FOR US.

Occupy Wall Street values collective resources, dignity, integrity and autonomy above money. We have not made endorsements. All donations are accepted anonymously and are transparently allocated via consensus by the General Assembly or the Operational Spokes Council.

We acknowledge the existence of professional activists who work to make our world a better place. If you are representing, or being compensated by an independent source while participating in our process, please disclose your affiliation at the outset. Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street.

We stand in solidarity. We are Occupy Wall Street.

Statement of Autonomy | OCCUPY WALL STREET

 

[Surrealistik]

PACs do have limits on what they can contribute to a candidate. And Super PACs can't contribute to candidates at all. And I've already said that I don't think corporate treasury money should be available for electioneering activities. The question at hand isn't about giving money to candidates, it's about whether people's personal resources ought to be able to be used to directly advocate for issues, legislation or ballot initiatives, electoral outcomes, etc. If I care about climate change, can I join like-minded people by donating to the Environmental Defense Action Fund to amplify our voices and advance our agenda?

Tom Steyer really wants to impeach Donald Trump. So he has his Need to Impeach SuperPAC (financed primarily with donations from him but also a few hundred other people as well) and spent tens of millions running ads making his case and urging people to call their member of Congress. I don't see how you can argue that's not an example of speech.

You're right, Super PACs don't contribute to candidates, but they certainly do spend huge sums of money in support of them that can be unlimited in magnitude, and the Chinese wall forbidding non-coordination with the campaign of a SuperPAC's choice candidate is an obvious farce.

The current state of political spending is a classic example of a false symmetry; unions (which have been broadly decimated via the avenues of organized lobbying, propaganda and monied ingratiation) or not, advocacy groups of the poor or otherwise, the wealthy benefit vastly more from the system as it stands, and wield vastly greater influence through it as one might expect given they have by far the most money to invest in this regard, and this has been observed and documented by research; that interests other than corporations also have (substantially weaker) political advocacy vehicles does nothing to dispel this fact. All told, the American system of electoral finance and lobbying has produced what is almost certainly the most uneven playing field of any developed country.

Further, no one is arguing for an absolute ban on organized advocacy so much as reasonable limits on what can be done with the avenue of money, and against the wholesale dependence of politicos on private financing.

 

[bomberfox]

Maybe not, but a corporation has the same right of free speech as its members. People do not lose their free speech rights when they come together in a voluntary association.

Im not really arguing against this but recognize this is an organization, not a person.

 

[bomberfox]

You're right, Super PACs don't contribute to candidates, but they certainly do spend huge sums of money in support of them that can be unlimited in magnitude, and the Chinese wall forbidding non-coordination with the campaign of a SuperPAC's choice candidate is an obvious farce.

The current state of political spending is a classic example of a false symmetry; unions (which have been broadly decimated via the avenues of organized lobbying, propaganda and monied ingratiation) or not, advocacy groups of the poor or otherwise, the wealthy benefit vastly more from the system as it stands, and wield vastly greater influence through it as one might expect given they have by far the most money to invest in this regard, and this has been observed and documented by research; that interests other than corporations also have (substantially weaker) political advocacy vehicles does nothing to dispel this fact. All told, the American system of electoral finance and lobbying has produced what is almost certainly the most uneven playing field of any developed country.

Further, no one is arguing for an absolute ban on organized advocacy so much as reasonable limits on what can be done with the avenue of money, and against the wholesale dependence of politicos on private financing.

This. Its ludicrous to say money is the same ad speech which would give billionaires more rights to speech than the rest of us.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I just now realized I picked the wrong poll option.

 

[Ikari]

True, except when the thing is a voluntary association of people.

Then the People who compose the thing have rights, and the thing itself still doesn't.

 

[eman623]

Then the People who compose the thing have rights, and the thing itself still doesn't.

If you say so. Corporations can still work to influence public opinion. Because people.

 

[Ikari]

If you say so. Corporations can still work to influence public opinion. Because people.

Because people can spend corporate dollars to do so. But Corporations are still property, they are not people. Nor should they be considered people.

 

[eman623]

Because people can spend corporate dollars to do so. But Corporations are still property, they are not people. Nor should they be considered people.

You're splitting hairs, but whatever floats your boat.

Corporations can own things, have free speech rights, enjoy rights of due process under the 14th amendment, and they can bring suits and go bankrupt. They are treated as a single entity for tax and regulatory purposes.

But they are NOT PEOPLE. Except the USSC says they are. Glad you cleared that up.

 

[Ikari]

You're splitting hairs, but whatever floats your boat.

Corporations can own things, have free speech rights, enjoy rights of due process under the 14th amendment, and they can bring suits and go bankrupt. They are treated as a single entity for tax and regulatory purposes.

But they are NOT PEOPLE. Except the USSC says they are. Glad you cleared that up.

Corporations are given certain privileges for the sake of litigation and other legal proceedings. Probably has gotten a bit out of hand.

The government can do much of that too, but governments are not People either.

And I know what the USSC said, if you had paid attention, you would have noted that my first statement was, "I think one of the worst things we ever did was to invent this convoluted concept of corporate personhood". We shouldn't treat corporations as people or consider them people. Corporations are fundamentally property.

 

[Surrealistik]

This. Its ludicrous to say money is the same ad speech which would give billionaires more rights to speech than the rest of us.

In a nut shell.

Also to be clear, 'forbidding' prior to non-coordination in my prior post should be forcing; it got autocorrected/filled.

 

[bomberfox]

You're splitting hairs, but whatever floats your boat.

Corporations can own things, have free speech rights, enjoy rights of due process under the 14th amendment, and they can bring suits and go bankrupt. They are treated as a single entity for tax and regulatory purposes.

But they are NOT PEOPLE. Except the USSC says they are. Glad you cleared that up.

Corporations dont really own things, they are purely legal constructs with no ability outside what the owners do with it. Corporations are property, not people.

 

[bomberfox]

If you say so. Corporations can still work to influence public opinion. Because people.

The owners direct funding under that legal entity.

 

[bomberfox]

You're splitting hairs, but whatever floats your boat.

Corporations can own things, have free speech rights, enjoy rights of due process under the 14th amendment, and they can bring suits and go bankrupt. They are treated as a single entity for tax and regulatory purposes.

But they are NOT PEOPLE. Except the USSC says they are. Glad you cleared that up.

Can you kill a corporation and have it be considered murder?

 

[eman623]

Can you kill a corporation and have it be considered murder?

No, because they aren't people. I thought you'd cleared that up.

 

[BahamaBob]

Corporations dont really own things, they are purely legal constructs with no ability outside what the owners do with it. Corporations are property, not people.

Absolutely wrong. Corporations do own things. Those buildings, equipment, monies and other property are owned by the corporations.

 

[bomberfox]

Absolutely wrong. Corporations do own things. Those buildings, equipment, monies and other property are owned by the corporations.

Really? I wonder which legal fiction makes the decision to buy things mmm.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS believes corporations are what the founders had in mind when they penned the Constitution.

The sad part is that neither major party really wants to outlaw corporate money from political campaigns.

Get back to us when GM or Ford casts the vote that puts the next man in office.