dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
94
share rss forum feed


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Corporations need to be stripped of "Personhood".

They have no business controlling laws with their money and then claiming it's their free right as a "Person." No.


kevinsheeks

join:2013-05-10
united state

Re: Corporations need to be stripped of "Personhood".

I agree it's been out of control for to long now



delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to KrK

It's not that easy, unless you believe that your family should not be able to pool their money to support something. Or your neighborhood, or you and a friend.
Stripping a group of people their rights is probably not a great idea, even though there are groups that don't seem to deserve them (westboro baptist church for example). I mean, it is in the short run, until they come for your groups ideas and shut you down.

In many industries we often find people will declare a solution to us, rather than describe the problem and letting us find the best way to handle it. In your case, you are declaring a solution, but not addressing the problem. The problem is that the government has the power to do this. Not that someone with influence/money brings it to vote. If Bill Gates took 30 billion dollars to push for legislation to shut up the westboro baptist church, it wouldn't matter. The government does not have the authority to shut people up. And so it is with your case. I would recommend working with your local politicans to make sure that your government/political entities simply do not have the authority or power or money to do these sorts of activities.



newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1

6 recommendations

reply to KrK

We the People, Not We the Corporations
»movetoamend.org/


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to delusion ftl

That does not change the fact that corporations should have never been ruled as people by SCOTUS.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to delusion ftl

The First Amendment protects the right of a group of people (another way to say a corporation) to "petition their government for a redress of grievances" (another way to say "lobby").

Who is say that one group of people (say the neighborhood association in favor of muni fiber) has any more of a right to lobby their state representatives than another group (say, Time Warner, who opposes it)?



vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to Kearnstd

Corporate personhood predates the Citizens United v FEC case by a few centuries. It means that the individual investors in a corporation can't be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation - the most they stand to lose is their investment. This makes sense from the point of view of everyone who as a 401K that invests in a fund that invests in a corporation not being sued if the corporation does something illegal.

It has its very obvious problems, too, but I wish people wouldn't misunderstand it like it's some kind of new doctrine or that getting rid of it would eliminate all of our corporation-caused problems.



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to fg8578

So you're saying a neighborhood association has the same $$$ to spend as Time Warner on lobbying?



vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

He clearly didn't say that. He said it's trickier than just "corporations bad" because any group that wants limited liability for their members (including a neighborhood association), is technically a corporation.

Is it just the big corporations that shouldn't be allowed to lobby? How big?



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to fg8578

A corporation cannot vote in an public election. A business cannot vote. Any non human entity cannot vote.

That should be the bar set for allowance of lobbying. Explicitly forbid money that is not personal from being used for lobbying or promotion of elections. Persons can take their personal money, join it together with others personal money, and do as they wish but a business cannot lobby to promote any business itself with that businesses money where no single person is able to be held accountable by design.

We the people.
--
Say no to those that ‘inadvertently make false representations’.



delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to newview

Wow, scary. Do you really believe that you should be told by the government who you can or cant give your money to, or spend your money on, for whatever reason? (and by money, that would also include equivalents, like trades, time, etc... Example: You are not allowed to speak at a fundraiser for X because even though you are doing it for free, it's still a "benefit")

This would effectively stifle free speech. I am ashamed to see Americans support this :-(



Amun

@comcast.net
reply to fg8578

Easy fix: Limit the amount of money that a group can spend (directly or indirectly) on lobbying. Make that limit much lower for out of state groups.



vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to delusion ftl

I think you're being a bit dramatic for effect. You, as a person, could do a fundraiser for a politician. So could Bill Gates. Microsoft could not. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's not exactly the end of freedom.



newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast
reply to delusion ftl

said by delusion ftl :

Wow, scary. Do you really believe that you should be told by the government who you can or cant give your money to, or spend your money on, for whatever reason? (and by money, that would also include equivalents, like trades, time, etc... Example: You are not allowed to speak at a fundraiser for X because even though you are doing it for free, it's still a "benefit")

This would effectively stifle free speech. I am ashamed to see Americans support this :-(

And I'm ashamed that our ELECTED Representatives actually believe that corporations have the best interests of the people at heart and continue to take $$$ from them and their lobbyists to champion bills that only do those corporations good and no one else.

Free Speech is for the PEOPLE ... not corporations.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to firephoto

That's reasonable. I'm not sure how I feel about it - on one hand, I see the negative impacts of the huge sums of lobbying money that only corporations can donate, on the other hand, sometimes a corporation has a genuine need to lobby. What if there's an outdated law that impacts them and they want it repealed? Because the law doesn't bother anyone else, no one else cares. I feel like they should be allowed to lobby in that case, but I don't suppose I feel too strongly about it.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to Jim Kirk

No, I don't believe I said that. Thank goodness our rights are not defined by how much money we have!



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to firephoto

Well, this may change if California gets its way, but right now, non-citizens cannot vote.

Suppose your state legislature was to consider some law that was really bad for them. Would you prohibit them from lobbying simply because they cannot vote?

Remember, rights under the First Amendment are not limited to "citizens" or "voters".



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

1 recommendation

reply to vpoko

That's true but in general laws are passed to stifle competition directly or by raising the barrier to enter a market or to manipulate a market to make inferior goods attractive.

We don't need ethanol fuel but to maintain our export market of petroleum we dilute domestic petroleum with the ethanol. This leads to higher consumer costs for the majority while increasing profits for the minority, all by artificial means.

Look at the keystone pipeline, it's purpose is to get crude to southern refiners and southern export terminals, it won't benefit the domestic fuel market in the same way it would if instead they would build refineries closer to the source.

It's all a rigged game with those at the top pulling the ropes.
--
Say no to those that ‘inadvertently make false representations’.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to delusion ftl

It would not be stripping a group of people of their rights. Those exact same people can still express their voice and dont need a corporation "buy" legislation with legalized bribery.

Actual people pooling money for the same cause is not the same thing as 1000's, 10's of thousands or even 100's of thousands of people that have no idea they may or may not be invested in a company that is pushing a particular agenda. Most people do not invest directly in a company and therefore are not giving said company the right to "speak" on their behalf.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to firephoto

Also, limiting money spent on lobbying can be a problem because SCOTUS has ruled the money is a form of political speech. Not everyone likes it, but right now that's the law of the land.

However, there ARE limits on campaign contributions so there must be way to limit money that passes Constitutional muster. I would support that.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to vpoko

Your very first sentence shows exactly why they should not have been ruled as people.

People, can and are held responsible for their actions. Corporations aren't and the people that hide behind the corporate shield (which was created by elitist to protect themselves) aren't.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to vpoko

They are still free to petition congress or their regulators to have said laws changed if it impacts them. They just can't do it within the current frame work of giving money (bribing) to have it done.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Amun

Thats been done and thus the SuperPAC was born.



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to fg8578

said by fg8578:

Well, this may change if California gets its way, but right now, non-citizens cannot vote.

Suppose your state legislature was to consider some law that was really bad for them. Would you prohibit them from lobbying simply because they cannot vote?

Remember, rights under the First Amendment are not limited to "citizens" or "voters".

Yes because I believe every law should benefit every person where the law applies. It does not serve a population to only allow most benefits via law to apply to those ultra minorities at the top that can spend millions of dollars towards getting these passed by manipulation. This also means that only laws meeting these criteria should come up for a vote by elected representatives and therefore laws to target specific businesses, like anti-public broadband laws, should never even exist.

And this isn't about rights, it's about elected officials who pass laws representing the people that can vote rather than colluding with the money that can get them elected on lies.
--
Say no to those that ‘inadvertently make false representations’.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

Your very first sentence shows exactly why they should not have been ruled as people.

People, can and are held responsible for their actions. Corporations aren't and the people that hide behind the corporate shield (which was created by elitist to protect themselves) aren't.

Listen, if I buy 5 shares of Coca-Cola stock, and management tomorrow decides to put rat poison into it, should I be sued because I owned some stocks, even though I would have no way of knowing that they were poisoning the product? Limited liability makes a lot of sense from the point of view of shareholders (with the exception of very large shareholders) having very limited control over the company's operations.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
reply to Skippy25

Can they use corporate money to buy a billboard?



delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to newview

The problem is not elected representatives taking money, it's that the elected representatives are given enough power that it's worth giving them tons of money.



delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to vpoko

Could my family? What about my soccer team? What about my improv group?
No it's not the end of freedom, it's just another in a long line of erosion by simply having the government control political speech. Which of course means they'll stifle the actions of groups they disagree with, and encourage the actions of those they oppose.



delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to Amun

Translation: Easy fix: take away freedom, take extra away from people who are out of state.

There was a time when Americans would have died for the right to spend money how they wanted. Now you want Elite politicians to tell us how to live. You may not be aware, but you are in the group who thinks the only thing standing in the way of the perfect country is enough laws. Right?

I will say this again: If the government does not have the power, nor the budget, there is little incentive for corporations to lobby or give it money.



delusion ftl

@comcast.net
reply to Skippy25

Translation: They have freedom of speech and are free to say things. They just have to do it in ways we (Elite Politicians) approve.