What are "corporations" if not people?

[OODA_Loop]

exactly

time to retire a few idiots here

No actually the decision was strictly within the grounds of 1st Amendment protections.

If you have something from the decision demonstrating otherwise I would read and appreciate it.

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

No it was. All the name calling and insults in the world wont change that.

People are not limited in political expression by virtue of their collective assembly into a corporate body. The movie was that political expression. The cruxt the limitation thereof. Prior, if you were a corporation and you wrote a song and broadcast it stating your views about a candidate within allotted the time frame it was illegal. The SCOTUS 5-4 vote affirmed that right by deeming that portion of the election law unconstitutional.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It brought in issues and precedent no one asked the Court to.

Example ?

 

[Truthmatters]

No actually the decision was strictly within the grounds of 1st Amendment protections.

If you have something from the decision demonstrating otherwise I would read and appreciate it.

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

No it was. All the name calling and insults in the world wont change that.

People are not limited in political expression by virtue of their collective assembly into a corporate body. The movie was that political expression. The cruxt the limitation thereof. Prior, if you were a corporation and you wrote a song and broadcast it stating your views about a candidate within allotted the time frame it was illegal. The SCOTUS 5-4 vote affirmed that right by deeming that portion of the election law unconstitutional.

then they can do it woth their own money and not with their corporate coffers.

its stop NO speech to not let them use the corporate coffers to speak

 

[OODA_Loop]

then they can do it woth their own money and not with their corporate coffers.

its stop NO speech to not let them use the corporate coffers to speak

Not according to SCOTUS, sorry.

From the decision:

Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment’s meaning and purpose.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So if you roof drains onto your drive way, and the runoff freezes and turns it into a skating rink, you have killed someone if they slip on it and smash their skull open? Should you be tried for murder?

you asked for an example of a corporation killing somebody. I posted an example. What is it you don't like fact or reality?

My analogy makes it clear the corporation didn't kill anybody just as the homeowner hasn't killed the person who slips on his property and smashes his skull. However, in both cases they can be held liable for negligence.

and you said "No one in this discussion has said a corporation is a person. They have said corporations are people, which is 100% accurate" - which is idiocy on steroids

It takes idiocy on steroids not to understand the simple truth.

below is the history of responses...

hmmm, another wingnut imbecile challenges reality? Whatever in the whack-a-doodle-doo world of Right Wing Lunacy is going on here @ USMB?

So when corporations kill people can we execute them? Put them in prison maybe? Slap their wrists?

(where the hell are those wrists?)

Can you give us an example of a corporation killing people?

Can you give us an example of a corporation killing people?

A Perth crane company has been found guilty of causing the death of a worker by failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace.

please get a life?

you see? your poor analogy came after Dante's comments to you, so in reality you've been exposed as a deceitful little prick.

saying "No one in this discussion has said a corporation is a person. They have said corporations are people, which is 100% accurate" - is imbecility at it's finest. The Court did not decide, rule, or declare corporations are 'people' and not persons.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No actually the decision was strictly within the grounds of 1st Amendment protections.

If you have something from the decision demonstrating otherwise I would read and appreciate it.

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

No it was. All the name calling and insults in the world wont change that.

People are not limited in political expression by virtue of their collective assembly into a corporate body. The movie was that political expression. The cruxt the limitation thereof. Prior, if you were a corporation and you wrote a song and broadcast it stating your views about a candidate within allotted the time frame it was illegal. The SCOTUS 5-4 vote affirmed that right by deeming that portion of the election law unconstitutional.

stupid, the law did not prohibit airing the film before the 60 day window. The law did not even prohibit the showing of the movie to people within the 60 day window as long as it wasn't shown on the air.

now stfu about it. you're lost

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It brought in issues and precedent no one asked the Court to.

Example ?

jesus, get an assistant: for starters see if you can read and comprehend this one...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

The majority proposes several other justifications for the sweep of its ruling. It suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because, if the Court were to continue on its normal course of resolving as-applied challenges as they present themselves, that process would itself run afoul of the First Amendment . See, e.g., ante , at 9 (as-applied review process “would raise questions as to the courts’ own lawful authority” ibid. (“Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment &#8221. This suggestion is perplexing. Our colleagues elsewhere trumpet “our duty ‘to say what the law is,’ ” even when our predecessors on the bench and our counterparts in Congress have interpreted the law differently. Ante , at 49 (quoting Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). We do not typically say what the law is not as a hedge against future judicial error. The possibility that later courts will misapply a constitutional provision does not give us a basis for pretermitting litigation relating to that provision. 7

The majority suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because anything less would chill too much protected speech.

 

[Buford]

It brought in issues and precedent no one asked the Court to.

Example ?

jesus, get an assistant: for starters see if you can read and comprehend this one...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then...

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The majority proposes several other justifications for the sweep of its ruling. It suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because, if the Court were to continue on its normal course of resolving as-applied challenges as they present themselves, that process would itself run afoul of the First Amendment . See, e.g., ante , at 9 (as-applied review process “would raise questions as to the courts’ own lawful authority”); ibid. (“Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment ”). This suggestion is perplexing. Our colleagues elsewhere trumpet “our duty ‘to say what the law is,’ ” even when our predecessors on the bench and our counterparts in Congress have interpreted the law differently. Ante , at 49 (quoting Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). We do not typically say what the law is not as a hedge against future judicial error. The possibility that later courts will misapply a constitutional provision does not give us a basis for pretermitting litigation relating to that provision. 7

The majority suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because anything less would chill too much protected speech.

Only losers still use Wikipedia. Dumb ass.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's True: Corporations Are People
What else could they be?
Buildings don't hire people.
Buildings don't design cars that run on electricity or discover drug therapies to defeat cancer.

Elizabeth Warren introduced President Obama at a big fundraiser in Boston:
"Mitt Romney tells us, in his own words, he believes corporations are people. No, Mitt, corporations are NOT people," she pronounced. "People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They love and they cry and they dance. They live and they die. Learn the difference." The audience went wild.
Jack Welch and Suzy Welch: It's True—Corporations Are People - WSJ.com

Ms. Warren.. who makes corporate decisions? Computers? Buildings? Oil wells?
Seriously .. what else but "people" make those decisions? NOT corporations!

The difference between people and corporations? People vote, corporations buy politicians. People get sick and die, corporations go on forever (especially if they are big enough 'not to fail'). People are held liable for their misdeeds, corporations are designed with limited liability. People make decisions for their children, corporations make decisions for their stockholders. If a person kills someone, they face criminal prosecution. When corporations kill people, no one ends up on death row.

Corporations "die" all the time. They get sued into bankruptcy and dissolve, they lose their corporate charter. Corporations never commit the kind of malfeasance that kills someone. It's a corporate decision maker and yes, they are prosecuted for it too.

Isn't that precisely what DuPont told the people of Bopahl India?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Example ?

jesus, get an assistant: for starters see if you can read and comprehend this one...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then...

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The majority proposes several other justifications for the sweep of its ruling. It suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because, if the Court were to continue on its normal course of resolving as-applied challenges as they present themselves, that process would itself run afoul of the First Amendment . See, e.g., ante , at 9 (as-applied review process “would raise questions as to the courts’ own lawful authority”); ibid. (“Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment ”). This suggestion is perplexing. Our colleagues elsewhere trumpet “our duty ‘to say what the law is,’ ” even when our predecessors on the bench and our counterparts in Congress have interpreted the law differently. Ante , at 49 (quoting Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). We do not typically say what the law is not as a hedge against future judicial error. The possibility that later courts will misapply a constitutional provision does not give us a basis for pretermitting litigation relating to that provision. 7

The majority suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because anything less would chill too much protected speech.

Only losers still use Wikipedia. Dumb ass.

Dearest USMB Doofus-in-Chief, attempt to refute something.

 

[Too Tall]

The problem is that the owners of corporations aren't held fully accountable for what their companies do in the name of earning them a profit. So stockholders feel relatively free to hire 'gunslinger' CEOs who will do whatever is necessary to bring in the dough. They pay them exorbitant salaries to be, essentially, fall guys who will do the dirty work and take the hit if caught. The worst case scenario (from an investor's POV) will be the crooked CEOs getting busted and the company losing some money.

If owners of a privately held company did this, if they hired unscrupulous thugs and told them to do whatever it took to earn a profit, they would be culpable. At the very least, they'd be liable for lawsuits resulting from the actions of their company. They could lose everything they own, not just the money invested in the business. My question is, why should corporate investors be shielded from this kind of responsibility?

Advantages of a corporation

A corporation (from Latin “corpus”, literally “body”) is considered to be a person who is completely separate from its owners. Owners are known as shareholders because they own only a share or part of the organization. Like a person, corporations may own property and assets, take on debt to finance operations, and sell shares to raise money. The corporation enjoys four major advantages that, when combined, make this type of organization attractive for large ventures.

1. Owner liability is limited to the loss of the value of shares held. Owners’ entire wealth is not in jeopardy if the corporation goes bankrupt or ceases operation.

2. When owners die, shares of the corporation can be willed to family members or other entities just like any other asset.

3. Selling ownership of a corporation is simply a matter of selling shares to a buyer willing to pay the price of the shares.

4. The permanent nature of corporations makes capital easier to acquire as lenders do not have to worry about the death of its owners.

Disadvantages

The corporation does have one major disadvantage. Income made by the corporation is taxed twice. The first taxation occurs because the corporation is considered to be a person and, therefore, is taxed accordingly. Then, the income gained through ownership of the corporation is taxed as personal income in the owners’ income tax.

Advantages of a Corporation Over a Partnership or Sole Proprietorship

Class dismissed.

I'm afraid you've missed the point of my question. I'm not asking what advantages incorporation offers companies and investors, or why they would want these perks - that much is obvious. I'm asking why we, as a society, should grant them. Especially in light of the disadvantageous - the lack of accountability, the concentration of power, the increased lifespan of companies that might otherwise fail lacking these perks.

It is imperative that large corporations be able to raise money from stockholders to undertake large ventures, as explained in the article. No one would buy shares in these corporations if their liability was not limited to merely losing their investment. May I ask where GM would get the capital to build the plants required to manufacture automobiles all over the world is they were not incorporated?

There have been corporations around since the mid 1300's and there must be a reason they still exist.

 

[Staidhup]

I guess it's a fact, corporations are nothing more than ATM machines for liberal politicians to milk and demonize when necessary. Funny how people don't understand why most business's rush to move manufacturing off shore and never repatriate their offshore earnings. I guess if the working class loathes business so much then they deserve nothing better than to reap the fruit of the seeds they have sown. The amusing part, sad as it may be, is that they support the very people and policies that drive opportunity off shore. Talk about shooting ones self in the foot in spite of themselves. Interesting in that business does not deserve a voice when Unions, and special interest groups do.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

I guess it's a fact, corporations are nothing more than ATM machines for liberal politicians to milk and demonize when necessary. Funny how people don't understand why most business's rush to move manufacturing off shore and never repatriate their offshore earnings. I guess if the working class loathes business so much then they deserve nothing better than to reap the fruit of the seeds they have sown. The amusing part, sad as it may be, is that they support the very people and policies that drive opportunity off shore. Talk about shooting ones self in the foot in spite of themselves. Interesting in that business does not deserve a voice when Unions, and special interest groups do.

more incredibly stupid comments...how sad

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If corporations are people, Mitt Romney's a murderer.

 

[Peach]

If corporations are people then they are people who continually shirk their responsibilities, easily over ride the interests of actual people, cause damage to society and the environment far in excess of what a single person could do and are practically impossible to punish for their wrong doings. If a person such as that lived next door you would hate their stinking guts.

Business entities, comprised of those who operate them(.)

 

[The T]

I guess it's a fact, corporations are nothing more than ATM machines for liberal politicians to milk and demonize when necessary. Funny how people don't understand why most business's rush to move manufacturing off shore and never repatriate their offshore earnings. I guess if the working class loathes business so much then they deserve nothing better than to reap the fruit of the seeds they have sown. The amusing part, sad as it may be, is that they support the very people and policies that drive opportunity off shore. Talk about shooting ones self in the foot in spite of themselves. Interesting in that business does not deserve a voice when Unions, and special interest groups do.

more incredibly stupid comments...how sad

Translation: "How dare YOU endanger my gravytrain..."

S0n? YOU are a pathetic piece of yaksqueeze.

 

[dblack]

It is imperative that large corporations be able to raise money from stockholders to undertake large ventures, as explained in the article. No one would buy shares in these corporations if their liability was not limited to merely losing their investment. May I ask where GM would get the capital to build the plants required to manufacture automobiles all over the world is they were not incorporated?

Right. It's a collusion between political and economic power, indulged largely in the name of international competition. It's really analogous to the 'partnership' that existed in western monarchies between the church and government - each supporting the others dominance over society to further their own ends.

But I think that just as we realized that church and state were a dangerous mix, and that we are better off when they remain separate, economic power and state power need to be separated as well. That means government need to stop propping up corporations with special privilege and government needs to get along with corporate collusion.

There have been corporations around since the mid 1300's and there must be a reason they still exist.

Of course there's a reason. But is it a good one?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Speaking of filthy rightwing ideas, just reading a trade journal of my business, and it is going on and on about how much I can save if I outsource most of my in house work...

bastards

author describes it as a "win win"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's True: Corporations Are People

then give them the vote and allow them to get married and file joint tax returns

Idiot democrats attacking the right to assembly.

Right to assembly?

Huh?

 

[Bush92]

Corporations are a group of investors who risk their own capital to make a profit on that investment. When I vote for a candidate, I invest my vote hoping for a return on that investment.