What You Probably Haven't Heard About Citizens United
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- In early 2008, a group called Citizens United sought to air commercials for their documentary that was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton. This appeared to violate federal election rules that prohibited corporations and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications" within 60 days of an election. Citizens United sued the Federal Election Commission and ultimately won a landmark Supreme Court case that expanded corporations' right to political speech.
The issue of campaign finance is hotly contested. Many argue that Citizens United has opened up a floodgate of corporate spending that threatens to erode American democracy. They also argue that a corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.
In this video, Learn Liberty sought ought the opposing view, in order to foster a more robust conversation on the topic of corporations and politics. Professor Bradley Smith explains why he believes the Supreme Court made the correct decision in Citizens United. He argues that restrictions on corporate speech violate our Constitutional right to free speech.
This is a controversial issue, and we want to know your opinion. Should corporations have the same rights that people do? Should businesses and unions be allowed to influence voters? Share your thoughts in the comments. For a good overview of arguments against Citizens United, check out the Story of Citizens United v. FEC, linked below
Learn More:
www.storyofstuff.org/movies-al...
www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/...
• 3 Reasons Not To Sweat...
www.politico.com/news/stories/...
www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoliti...
www.harvardlawreview.org/issue...
Find LearnLiberty on...
Twitter: bit.ly/RBl3Wv
Facebook: on. WziHpR
Our Website: bit.ly/RBl3FH
![แข่งแลกของ 1 วัน!! ของใครแพงสุดชนะ!! [Ver.2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/joRT59ilPHg/mqdefault.jpg)
Are they liable as real people?
Yes.
Bushrod Rust Johnson They are? So how many corporations went to jail after the financial collapse of 2008?
Cyrus Yareff
Take that up with the state. Just because individuals weren't indicted, does not mean they couldn't have been.
But that's exactly my point. They should have been and they weren't. They get no punishment for heinous crimes. And why don't they?
Cyrus Yareff
Because people have shit priorities in governance. Especially the so-called "progressives".
The problem I see with corporations is that since the responsibility is shared between so many people, it ends up watered down to the point of "we killed people, so we paid out $10 per employee, but since we have 100,000 of them it's plenty enough".
There aren't many large partnership run companies, I'll give you that, but that's because of the extreme leeway corporations get. Why *wouldn't* you want a license to do harm if you could get one, you know, just in case?
You have some typos in your description above.
you can't sue the corporations for everything, including pollution in food, water, and exploitation of fracking because citizens united gives those companies the legal protections of the people, as if these corporations were individuals. It does make a difference in the court room and it keeps corporations from being held accountable to the real people they are trying to exploit.
Because even if I did that, I'd still be living with the threat of state violence. Just recently there was a man who lived off grid who is being prosecuted by the state for building code violations.
Please elaborate as to what "extra rights" individuals receive when they form a group.
Does anyone know what the position of the government was on whether they could ban the publication of a newspaper where an editorial advocated one candidate over another. If so did they propose that it is easy to distinguish an educational institution like learnLiberty or the New York Times from an exploiter of the people such as Bank of America?
Corporations have been recognized as people almost since the beginning of this country. 23 States already gave corporations freedom of speech before Citizens United. The reason why it is treated like a person is because it is easier to deal with. Like the video said, you cannot go to each individual owner (stock holder) and ask for their permission or in many cases, sue them. That is logistically impossible.
Yes you can: sell your stock!
This is EXACTLY what stock is for: to either approve of the way the company is being run, and buy stock, or to disapprove of it (for whatever reason) and sell the stock.
Companies who act unethically, usually have their share price damaged as a result. This is a result of disapproving shareholders selling their shares.
If you don't sell, you are implicitly approving their actions.
This is the biggest load of horse suit i have heard in some time. Govt was not banning books and movies. They wanted the costs of production counted as political donations governed by the FEC.
This was really eye-opening for me.
While I am still reluctant about the idea of unlimited corporate political funds flooding the US Congress, this video firmly establishes in my mind the value and moral imperative to support corporate personhood.
Corporations are bound by their Articles of Incorporation, which are limited by corporate regulations and bylaws on personal obligations, rights and liabilities of stakeholders towards and within the corporation and the corporation towards the state. They're not happy-go-lucky gatherings of like-minded individuals acting under a collective name they thought up two minutes ago. The freedom of speech tack-on is a crafty unfunny-punny rhetorical spin on the corporate personhood concept intended to legalize all but the plainest forms of bribery - there can be no other reason, as corporations can normally only act in such a way as to maximize their own corporate value. Anything else would be misappropriation of corporate funds.
Dave Blair So a group of people having an interest in making money have no right to speak out about government policy that affects their interest? Hmm...
Cynical Idealist Sure. Nothing and nobody says they can't speak out about whatever they want to speak out about, individually or collectively, for whatever reason they choose, it's their democratic right like anyone else's. The only thing is, CU has as much to do with speaking out as my wallet has to do with singing the Lambada.
Somehow I feel that a little more effort could go into defining a corporation. Major shareholders are definitely more accountable.
The corporate veil can be pierced and personal criminal liability for corporate crimes has existed for more than a century. They are, in fact, quite commonplace: Sarbanes-Oxley, the FCPA, anti-dumping statutes, antitrust laws, etc.
Monsanto, McDonalds, and Walmart are examples of corporations that built substantial wealth in an era when people had no idea how horrible they were. Now it is becoming more common for people to oppose these companies because more people actually know the problems they bring. Unfortunately, their power has increased so much that voting with the dollar is very difficult to cause change. Their monopoly takes away this option for the poor in particular.
Have you or will you make a video addressing the issue of limited liability (LLC)?
I have no issues with corporations having the same rights as individuals, but I do have issues with government charters enforcing limited liability. That is one area where corporations assume greater rights than those of individuals.
+Nate Gabel Thanks for the recommendation regarding LLC. We will pass it onto our video producers!
Thank you! I look forward to it! :)
This would all make sense if there were some form of responsibility on the part of the executives of a corporation. But, in MANY cases, there is not. Quite often we hear of corporate executives signing no fault agreements as their corporation has to pay out a multimillion (or multibillion) dollar fine for wrongdoing. Often, these fines are about one month's profits for the biggest corporations. No executives are prosecuted and none of them go to prison. Something is wrong with that system.
i'm confused. if corporations have free speech rights, why can the government ban a corporate funded book or movie for political advocacy?
The problem with corporate personhood is that corporations are not internally democratic and thus often (most of the time?) a corporation's stance is not the one of the people comprising it.
Technically the government is represented by personhood for the sake of a court case. How many times have you seen "The United States vs XXXX". Actually quite a few times. Ironically, the case discussed here was between Citizens United vs the FEC. The FEC, was recognized as a person for the sake of the court case and was filing for grievances against the lobby group Citizens United who was also recognized as a person.
5) Corporate personhood does not protect the shareholders from corporate debts or liability. Corporation as it exists now as a legal entity shields the personal assets of shareholders from personal liability for the debts or actions of a corporation. By advocating corporate personhood with rights of "an individual or individuals", the shareholders legally become owner either under general partnership or sole proprietorship and lose their limited liability protection.
There is a huge difference between people using their right to assemble and a corporation being able to spend as much money as it wants in campaigns. For one, the decision to spend money on a candidate or ads is not made by the corporation as a whole, but rather by a board of directors or executives. The voice they want to convey with the money earned by the corporation is not necessarily the voice of the people at that work there, yet they are using funds that they don't personally own.
Ever had to deal with a bunch of completely corrupt scumbags who work for a self regulating organization (rationalizing theft/larceny, false pretenses, trespass, etc.. Ever been kidnapped? Ever looked at the odds of 1 (poor) vs 100 (rich)? Seriously? Oh I'll go out fighting, because that's the only way left, there is no reasonable expectation of a civil resolution (though I'm currently in the midst of trying, I seriously don't expect it to work out in an amicable or remotely fair way).
Let's take a hypothetical example of two viable candidates making their case in a football stadium before 80,000 potential listeners. Both are entirely free to say whatever they wish. However, one is limited by the strength of his vocal chords, whereas the other has purchased the use of the public address system. Although the speech of both is "free", the ability of the second candidate to make his case is amplified many times over. It's difficult to argue that this sort of setup is either fair or desirable. But it's essentially the election system we've got.
The point is that the basic argument over election campaigns is not really about the First Amendment; almost everyone supports the principle of free speech. Rather, it's about the distortion brought about by the ability of money to buy that greatly amplified sound system.
It's chiefly the latter that needs fixing.
Chalemagne Boesh I agree that the situation you describe is unfair, and possibly dangerous. However, I am not sure this analogy matches the current situation in American political debate.
I think a better analogy would be to imagine a convention with 80,000 attendees. There are thousands of booths, and each one tries to gain its share of the audience. Some booths are homemade cardboard backing with a few papers glued to it. Other booths are works of art. They are created by pros with all the expensive software and printing methods. They have music playing, trained staff at the booth, and some even have refreshments of some kind or another.
Clearly there is an inequality, but before we try to fix it we need to ask ourselves to what extent inequality is a bad thing. For example, the author of a single unpopular and poorly researched book will not have the same audience as an author that has developed a reputation of being entertaining, relevant, and correct. The latter author may have more money to make himself a better display then the first. And that is the way it should be, because we should not force the popular author to hold his display back in deference of the bad author, and the convention should not need to spend its limited funds on bringing a poor display up to snuff if the creator doesn't have the resources or incentive to do it himself.
Sure, there may be some booths with external financial backing. These booths may do better then they would if they had to rely on their own resources and content. But so what? If they cannot generate good content, fairly soon the audience will realize that the the flashy decorations mean very little, and they will seek out something more real. The impact of external funds will have its limits.
As far as your claim that almost everyone supports the principle of free speech, I will say the same thing to you as I said to Andre Wells:
Most people claim they support free speech. However, many of them will append a 'but' on the end and follow that will a weak justification for censorship. Let me give you a few examples:
"I support freedom of speech, but this Thomas Paine person is dangerous. We need to shut him down before he escalates the conflict with the crown."
"I support freedom of speech, but the slaves are already getting uppity. If this Friedrick Douglas person is allowed to preach his rhetoric we can have a rebellion on our hands and nobody wants that."
"I support freedom of speech, but the communists are a real danger to the American Way of Life. We need to imprison people that speak treasonous things against the government."
"I support freedom of speech, but Citizen's United is a corporation. If we let corporations have full freedom of speech then distortions would happen. And distortions are bad."
I honestly don't see any real moral difference between the last argument and the previous three.
Michael Eldredge How about foreign corporations and/or secretly funded "speech?" These go together of course, since, a foreign company can't be stopped from influencing American elections if their donations are confidential. Should North Korea be permitted to secretly bankroll a "charitable" entity to influence US elections?
Michael Eldredge Should one side be permitted to rent 95% of the booths (TV commercial slots)?
Chalemagne Boesh Of @2010, nearly half was spent by groups that revealed nothing about their funders.
Chalemagne Boesh
There are a number of points to be made here.
First, the Citizen's United decision does not prohibit mandatory disclosure. There is a gap in the law with the 501c4, but that gap can be closed without overturning the supreme court ruling.
Second, and this is more about my personal belief then matters of this law, but YES! I do belive foreign people and organizations should be able to spend money to influence an American election, provided they are upfront about what they are doing.
Suppose that an group of concerned Mexican citizens were worried about the effect of US recreational drug legislation on their own soil. Shouldn't they have a chance to say "Don't vote for this person. He will pass laws that give the murderous cartels more power." What about a Muslim group that wants peace in the middle east? Shouldn't they be able to run an add that says "Making peace in Afghanistan will help stabilize the region, so vote for Mr. Dove and not Mr. Hawk."?
Third, I am pretty sure the Citizen's United decision only applies to American institutions. If congress wants to pass a law to regulate foreign donations they have the power to do just that. Pundits like to talk about "dark foreign money" but the truth is that the Citizen's United ruling has no affect on those regulations.
Corporations are people, so when they break the law they should go to jail... How wait... they can't. The problem with "treating corporations as people" is that what this really means is that corporations get all the protections of people, without any of the negative rules like jail time. Corporations commit 1,000s of cases of fraud, they get a fine. A person commits one case of fraud they face up to 5 years in jail. Less legal punishments = less legal rights. End of story.
Corporations are GROUPS of individuals. In other words, individuals have rights, and when they make up groups or corporations they still maintain their rights.
Limited liability is not a special benefit for the corporation, but a benefit for the people who make up that corporation. It is saying that the legal ramifications for injuries that a corporation might inflict upon another are limited to the corporation and may not extend to the people who make up that corporation. So, if you have a business and you are sued because someone fell in your store, they cannot sue you for your personal property outside of the corporation.
The idea that groups have no rights flies in the face of associational freedoms protected by the First Amendment since the founding. Quaker groups were among the earliest groups to lobby the government for redress, and the Framers thought that such petitioning was protected by the First Amendment.
The Quakers formed just such a corporation for abolitionist lobbying purposes in the early Republic.
Citizens united was not a corporation. The ruling did not simply pertain to corporations. It was for any "group of individuals", which includes unions and not-for-profit organizations.
Or in other words - As long as the govt. has the power to do something, there will be someone behind them influencing that power to their favor.
Give me one example of when what you said was the case.
the problem, I think, that most people have with citizens united is that it allows corporations to dump money into a elected official's hands. Also corporations speak for their shareholders and not their employees.
The rights to assemble and the rights to search and seizure were never being suppressed. Everyone working for Exxon or Barnes and Nobles could still gather at local town hall meetings in the exact same way any other u.s citizen could. Also, what he said about suing corporate offices is utter nonsense. McDonald's was in 1994 over hot coffee, well before Citizen's United. Not only that, but people buy and sell shares ALL THE TIME. This has been going on for a century, and yet there
Our definitions of preventative are very different. I was talking about things like regulations and laws. Not things people actively chose to do. Sorry, if there was a misunderstanding. We are on very different arguments.
Anyone else notice the cursor on that iPad?
The point is that giving corporations the same rights as individuals ends up giving individuals who run companies greater power than individuals who do not. Companies should have no greater rights than any other group of individuals in which each individual has his own distinct voice. Not to mention that your solution does not solve the problem it just provides a way for you to be spiteful. The company governorship has already used your money.
The state is defined as a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This man was living off grid on his own land. He wasn't harming anyone, and yet he's being harassed by the state.
It's not just that the state forces us to fund it. It's that the state also doesn't allow anyone to seek alternatives to the state.
if corporations are people and they do illegal things like they are doing now, how do we get them in to jail?
The state takes license with other's liberties. If a group of people came to your door demanding a portion of your income in exchange for protection what would you do? Would a uniform, and a badge change your reaction? What separates the state from the mafia? The answer is nothing.
If you have an argument or disagreement say it.
How do you intend to give corporations less power? Corporations already shut down competition using the brute force of the state. That's the problem.
Most AnCaps advocate an end to the state, and all the artificial monopolies that it creates such as copyright laws. There'd be no copyright, patent, or IP laws in a completely free market.
This goes back to the argument the video mentioned - that somehow an individual standing alone has rights, but when there are several individuals working together with pooled resources, they don't have rights because they would have too much influence. That's called "hating the player", you need to hate the game instead. Banning funding doesn't make the govt. not corrupt, you have to actually change the power and reach of the govt. to do that.
There are ways of funding things without violence, or coercion, but because the state monopolizes those services there is no alternative.
I mainly have issues with companies that don't treat their employees well at all, such as by keeping them at minimum wage for several years. Companies like mcdonalds and walmart are so profitable that adding 2 dollars per hour to each employee's wage would hardly set them back.
managers, executives, and share holders = people.
No, the ONLY standing in that case was that corporations have the first amendment right to free speech, and that the government subsequently could not ban works by those corporations. It said nothing about "first or second class citizens".
Also, Citizens United was a small filmmaking group who wanted to release a movie about Hillary Clinton, but was banned from doing so. You're saying that they should have been struck down?
It's called limited liability, and it's wrong. If an individual wrongs another individual they're at fault but if the head of a corporation wrongs somebody they're protected by law.
Who was employed by CMI and BMO but doesn't show up on her WH resume. I think it's ironic that the money originally came from the widow of a doctor and Jarrett's husband is one... Wonder how he'd feel knowing what her company execs did to guarantee their pension. Hypothetically, I could sue under treaties, FTC, Clayton/Sherman (tying=monopoly) and others, but (by statute) 3 times what they made (far more than 550k) is as much systemic risk as they already introduced to cover their butts.
If government is limited there would be no reason to buy politicians. If government is limited they wouldn't be able to make laws that favor themselves.
Saying a corporation is a person confuses the issue. A corporation is a contract free people enter into, so a corporation is a group of people as he said. That means they have a right to own property, and form contracts.
can corporations get charged with felony murders?
[[Why should a corporation deserve political freedom? If the rights of the individual are protected then aren't the rights of every person in the corporation protected as well?]]
Well, this is essentially what the ruling says. The fact that incorporating gives legal distinction & separation from the owner, that is, legal protection in a law suit, gives a lot of people heartburn when that same corporation is said to have what is essentially private property rights that extend from the owners.
Money funds speech, it has to be spent in an election. Imagine campaigns funded solely by a candidate. That guarantees only the rich will have power. My opinion is that the problem with money in politics isn't specifically money, but government structure. Why are we ruled by only 535 people in Congress when we are a nation of 300 million? Better representational democracy would create too many elections for corporations to influence too heavily. Or, for that matter, Unions and political parties
Ads on youtube aren't taken as seriously as television ads.
With an army of lawyers, there's no hope against the corporation, which callously compartmentalizes, evades and projects like the worst narcissists and psychopaths. Little kids games like keep away on a grand scale.
It is utterly perverse to declare the open bribery of gov't officials as "free speech". Yet, strangely, if you work for a corporation, that corporation can take away your freedom of speech.
Corporations can be legal persons for ownership purposes, but as their only drive is to get profits, unlike genuine associations of people, they have an incentive to rig the rules in their favor when given the opportunity.
and what pisses my of most is that i`m not even American and i seem to know more about US then most of Americans.
but technically, employees are only resources corporations "rent" or "pay for." Employees can voluntarily leave and voluntarily chose to enter into a contract with the corporation where they sell their skills indefinitely in return for money in the form or a salary. Stockholders and managers (who own significant portions of stock almost without exception), actually OWN the corporation, in whatever portion that may be.
Their PERSONAL ASSETS. If that property could be taken in a lawsuit, owners and managers would be much more careful how they run companies.
Corporations are most certainly statist institutions. Limited liability (which is what allows a corporation to function) is governmental legal protection from the consequences of a corporation's actions. Under full liability (like what would exist in a 100% free market) corporations, especially big ones, would be extremely risky to form because of the chance that the shareholders assets would be seized if the corporation did something stupid.
Companies are amoral economic vehicles that have every incentive in the world to bend rules in their favor, they are not free 'association of people', as an organization of ordinary citizens that campaign for a political cause would be.
but corporations are owned by 100% people with vast resources, they can use that money how they want It is exactly the same as if all stockholders got together to advertise something or say something.
the unethical thing is the fact that government has the power to pick winners and losers in the economy, remove regulation, and there would be no unethical incentives for corporate favors but we would still have free speech.
That completely avoids my question. Ownership equals responsibility. Joint property dilutes that responsibility, which leads to mismanagement of resources.
People can easily cooperate without pooling their resources. If they must pool their money, they should find someone who is willing to stake his reputation on administering that money honestly. That's the way it should work.
A corporation is just a way to shift responsibility to a made-up system and still reap the benefits.
So this keeps the big bad government from trampling on individual and corporate rights. You're right, I haven't heard much about protecting rights or liberties lately. If anything, the exact opposite has been occurring recently.
The problem is that corportions do not take the views of all of their shareholds into account. The majority share holder(s) has complete control over the company. In other words if you own stock, but are not part of the majority share, the majority share may take the money that would have otherwise been paid to you as a dividend, and use it to support political positions that you don't agree with, and you cannot do anything about it.
The right of a companies to hire people is not in question. Companies do not get the rights to high or fire people under the US Constitution because "it is a group of people". The logic behind the idea that cooperation have the right's of people it that it represents people, if by there act of free speech they are not represents the people that own the company, why do they have those rights? And it does not have to be every spending on elections, just an annual vote at the shareholders meetings.
Interesting, but I bet that everyone who works for a corporation that is not a manager, execuite, or shareholder feels a little left out according to the definition.
Because they petition the government, just the same as the same as you do if you want to obtain a grant, or for "benefits" such as social security, medicare, medicaid and any other funds that are available to the people. They are no means entitled to those funds and rarely get their exact way when obtaining funds. The US Govt is one of, if not, the largest backer of corporations, LLC's and other entities that make commerce work. I still believe they should stay minimally involved.
Banning books is not a great idea especially with a country like ours
Why is limited liability of owners part of the corporation? I have liability insurance on my car? I am a good driver, but I realize that driving 2 tons of steel may cause some damage one day. My capital has a lot of heft as well, at least as much as a 2 ton car. It might, if mal-invested, hurt someone. What gives the government the right to say I'm not responsible for harming that person's rights. And that person has no recourse to sue real people? It is a huge motivator to crate externalizes.
I never said, "get rid of government" I said get rid of regulations. Regulations are equal to saying "We don't want any murders anymore. So lets install a video camera in every bodies house and have a police state." Really who do you actually stop? You are either too late or somebody has figured a way around the system. Not only that you harm everybody else for being normal. That is what regulations are like. There should be punishments, but preventive law hurts everybody.
You should watch the other video - "Is money speech?" by the same guy.
I think that argument fails in the case of, say, Citizens United, which is a corporation devoted to political advocacy, where the people involved are almost certainly in agreement on the political agenda of the group.
Most corporations are not like that, but how/where would you draw the line in restricting speech/money? Who would you trust to make that distinction?
Not that rent seeking on behalf of your shareholders or employees is really more ethical than what you suggest managers do.
I don't know exactly. Basically I don't see why things changed in the first place. Our political system had worked without all this money and I don't see the rights of groups protected in the way of spending as speech. If an entity cannot physically make words or speak it shouldn't have rights to speech through money in the political process as far as I'm concerned. If the individuals want to earn/collect money as a group then spend it as individuals go for it.
A corporation is a legal concept. Legal concepts are created by government.
Money is one way of obtaining speech. It is not the ONLY way to speak, obviously, but it is an important one in politics. Of course, the NY Times and the media can engage in political speech regardless. How is that fair? Money will always find a way.
Nah, you shouldn't concede that corporations are not people. Corporations ARE people, in the sense that groups of people are people. Associations of people are people. Crowds of people are people. The corporation is simply a nexus of contracts between people -- just as a crowds are a bunch of people in a given geographical nexus related to each other by their proximity.
Leading corporate law scholars have no problem with the view that corporations are people.
I can't help but notice when he described what a corporation was, he left "workers, & employees" off the list. He only includes the power elite in his definition of a corporation. I guess if you are not at least a manager, you aren't really a stake-holder huh?
Because corporations are owned by shareholders(i.e shareholders invested their money into said corporation).
Workers are sellers of their labour to those corporations.
Funny you mention warrantless searches and seizures, as it only seems corporations have the power to avoid them
Corporations are not people and nobody thinks they are... Yeah right.. "Corporations are people my friends" ~ Mitt Romney
The problem with giving corporations the right to spend money on politics is that not all shareholders within a corporation vote the same way. If I own stock in a corporation that donates to Obama, doesn't that mean they're using what I've contributed to promote Obama? If I don't like Obama politically, this means there is a conflict of interests.
I am in favor of individual shareholders keeping their political voices.
And as OWNERS of the corporation, it is their property and their rights as individuals extend to actions the corporation takes (as a collection of individuals pooling their collective resources, which are divided up among them by stock ownership). If you look at the very basis of what a corporation is, you'll see that the root unit is just an individual using his/her property/money to do something, whether that's make more money, endorse a candidate, try to convince others to donate charitably
I find it amusing that the video throws out there if corporations didn't have rights, the government could search office buildings and do warrantless searches. Cause the US government doesn't do that already? This is beside the point, LearnLiberty ignores the simply moral hazard of a system of unaccountable black box finance and draws an illusionary barrier between corporation and government. Corporations need the government to survive and thrive, whether its eminent domain, bailouts and etc.
They always say that arguments ad populum and plain out insults are classical logical arguments for certain demographics of people who can't pull together a logical position for themselves.
Wait a second - if a corporation "is a person" with all it`s laws this means that i.e. Monsanto or Google can pay up politicians billions od dollars to have things the way they want. Now let`s put together Microsoft, Apple, Monsanto, Google, Yahoo and few other "being person" corporations and we end up being owned by those few "persons" who have more money then rest of society put together. You catch my drift or is it too much to handle for some people?
And that's not even all the dirty details. Ever try to get a lawyer to contest a trust? They generally prefer to be paid up front for such tasks. Roughly 12k a year isn't going to pay the right guys. To make matters worse, banks have a habit of hiring the "good" ones which creates a conflict of interest. Harris/BMO entered agreements with an insurance company called Phoenix and the IPO includes collaborations with other (bigger) banks Lose-lose at best. PLUS Sr Fin Advisor to Obama=Jarret.
As far as i know you CAN record cops on duty and they CAN`T put you to jail for that. this is the law, what cops do is AGAINST the law.
Hmmm...I rather like having carpets on my floors. I also appreciate being able to whip through the drive-thru at McDonalds when I am in a hurry and want a quick bite. As well, I would rather pay sixty-nine cents for something at Wal-Mart than ninety-nine cents at Target. Since no one forces me to deal with any of these companies, and I do so only because I am better off afterward, I fail to understand why you consider them "horrible"?
Lol cursor sticker on the iPad
Yes we do, it's called voting with your dollar. If a company is working in contrast tot he good of the people then the people should boycott that business and when they no longer have the money to run rough shot, out they go. Many huge companies of the past no longer exist today for those exact reasons. So if for instance Monsanto is doing things we find objectionable, we petition that company through campaigns to law makers and boycotting their services. That is the fair way.
Individuals have rights not groups and especially not the corporations
And you don't seem to get how ''federal laws'' work.
every person is a Corporation, this is why there are traffic courts. Traffic courts deal in contracts. Nothing constitutional about them but they are there.This is why a Business can give money to politicians just like People. When you get bills in the mail everything is in CAPITAL LETTERS. There is a reason for it. Stop watch TV and learn more about your government.
Well first, those $9000... Will mean alot so if you keeps buying food, food prices will go up, people will make more money on food, and much of the money will go into reinvesting in farms and new ways of growing food. You can't just look at that money as money. That money represents a workforce, incentives, and resources to get that shit done.
I am not sure, but I think in cases of theft and fraud, the victim is compensated or their stolen goods return by the thief or fraudster as well as going to jail. Or maybe you have to go to civil court, I am not sure. Both yes, both should happen in both cases.
the solution to everything argued here is the expansion of the law to include corporations under free speech laws (which they would be anyway) and exempt them from forced privatization (which they are already).. other than that theres no reason why corporations should be treated as though they have the same interests, financial power, and political backing as regular people
I think you missed the point, the citizens united claim wasn't about political campaign contributions but about releasing political material as a corporation. I am limited in my campaign donations, but i am NOT limited in my political advocacy, i am perfectly allowed to go spend tens of millions making a movie promoting my political thoughts and thus so should corporations.
There could easily be corporation-like contracts in a free market, no doubt. However, corporations as they exist today are legal entities. A corporation is a legal tool defined by government.
Because they are a group of people, not a person. Watch the video again to understand.
Argument form tradition....
Only people act -> only people can be held responsible -> people are the only legitimate objects to pay reparations for wrong-doings. People hide behind corporate personhood to escape this.