A corporation is running for congress

Couldn't the same be said for really any other group? If you insert unions instead of corporations into your statement would the meaning change at all?

Every group is looking out for their best interest.

I'm having trouble explaining myself.

You can be a member of a union that's inside a corporation. Example: (I'm making up these names.) Western PA Hospital is a corporation. The maintenance and housekeeping staffs are part of a union. The union employees are united on behalf of their working conditions. However, every employee of the hospital (corporation) is not a member of the union, but all union members are in the corporation. I know this is really clumsy but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
 
I'm having trouble explaining myself.

You can be a member of a union that's inside a corporation. Example: (I'm making up these names.) Western PA Hospital is a corporation. The maintenance and housekeeping staffs are part of a union. The union employees are united on behalf of their working conditions. However, every employee of the hospital (corporation) is not a member of the union, but all union members are in the corporation. I know this is really clumsy but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

No, I get what you are saying and it makes sense. If we can for this discussion let's leave aside the example of a head of a company making a large donation on behalf of the company to a politician who shares his same social belief on abortion. Couldn't the corporation make the same argument as the union that its donation to a politician(s) is being made on behalf of the company to help improve the company in the marketplace and therefore helping the employees through being able to keep the company in business and doing well and keeping their jobs and possible bigger bonuses/perks? (sorry last sentence is very long winded. hope it made sense.)
 
That's not my point. All of those groups are composed of people who are united in their agendas. You can't say the same for corporations because all of the people who make them up are not united in the same way.

So only groups who are united in their agendas can be allowed freedom of speech? Groups of people who have different agendas and a diversity of views, are not permitted to speak politically? I'm still confused over who you think deserves freedom of speech and who you wish to deny it to. Can you explain?
 
One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington, and the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests.

On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers.

We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials.

We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans, and for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House, the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress.

But, this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists, and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence.

This ruling strikes at our democracy itself.

By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law, including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy.

It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way, or to punish those who don’t.

That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time.

Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans, and we don’t intend to.

When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision.

We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary American, and as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.
 
Here's what the U.S. really needs to do:

"Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course. In the end the amendment was not adopted because a majority in the first Congress believed that already existing state laws governing corporations were adequate for constraining corporate power. Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power...

Please read the rest here
http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm

Nonsense. Jefferson and Madison were referring to govt created monopolies.
 
Okay, hypothetical. Domino's Pizza was founded by an anti-abortion Catholic. Let's say Mr. Monaghan in the name of Domino's wants to donate to Republican candidates who are anti-abortion. (If that's not how it would work, please correct.) What about all the Domino's employees and management who don't think the same as Monaghan and don't want corporate money to go to those people?

The individuals who make up corporations already have freedom of speech. They can use their money to support anything they want. Why does a corporation, which is not a person, get what amounts to more rights?

The Court opinion answered this.

(3)
The Government’s asserted interest in protecting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate speech, like the antidistortion rationale, would allow the Government to ban political speech even of media corporations. The statute is underinclusive; it only protects a dissenting shareholder’s interests in certain media for 30 or 60 days before an election when such interests would be implicated in any media at any time. It is also overinclusive because it covers all corporations, including those with one shareholder. P. 46.
 
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010...activity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20100130


TOOO funny


Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing corporations to be treated as ‘people’ for political donation purposes, a Maryland based corporation, Murray Hill, Inc. is throwing its hat in the ring, seeking to represent Maryland’s 8th District in Congress.

Promising a campaign that “puts people second, or even third”, the company is challenging Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen in the district’s Democratic primary.

Classic...the dummy neocons keep yelling that "corporations aren't people"....while everyone else is pointing out that "for donations purpose" the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United says they are. And since when investment bankers handle mergers for corporations, and their contracts name THE CORPORATION as the client and NOT the individual board members, the neocon dummies keep trying to ignore how the business aspects work here.
 
Okay, hypothetical. Domino's Pizza was founded by an anti-abortion Catholic. Let's say Mr. Monaghan in the name of Domino's wants to donate to Republican candidates who are anti-abortion. (If that's not how it would work, please correct.) What about all the Domino's employees and management who don't think the same as Monaghan and don't want corporate money to go to those people?

The individuals who make up corporations already have freedom of speech. They can use their money to support anything they want. Why does a corporation, which is not a person, get what amounts to more rights?

Excellent response! The neocons keep trying to change the language....opponents to this ruling are saying that the Citizens United ruling gives corporations the rights of citizens with regards to political donations...which is improbable being that a corporate NAME is NOT a person. Corporate NAMES go on contracts, legal documents, etc. So are the neocon dummies willing to accept when say, Soros directly uses the largesse of one of his companies DIRECTLY to finance a campaign in a local election...because the corporation (or union) sure as hell has more money than the INDIVIDUAL employees/members. They REFUSE to acknowledge this, and try, like the Shrub appointed Scotus judges to muddle the discussion in free speech, rather than what it's really about, a level playing field.
 
Originally Posted by christiefan915
Okay, hypothetical. Domino's Pizza was founded by an anti-abortion Catholic. Let's say Mr. Monaghan in the name of Domino's wants to donate to Republican candidates who are anti-abortion. (If that's not how it would work, please correct.) What about all the Domino's employees and management who don't think the same as Monaghan and don't want corporate money to go to those people?

The individuals who make up corporations already have freedom of speech. They can use their money to support anything they want. Why does a corporation, which is not a person, get what amounts to more rights?

The Court opinion answered this.

(3)
The Government’s asserted interest in protecting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate speech, like the antidistortion rationale, would allow the Government to ban political speech even of media corporations. The statute is underinclusive; it only protects a dissenting shareholder’s interests in certain media for 30 or 60 days before an election when such interests would be implicated in any media at any time. It is also overinclusive because it covers all corporations, including those with one shareholder. P. 46.

And that's a crock! What about the employees! And essentially, what this is saying is that it's not about what the shareholders say, it's about what those who are on the board of the corporation who enact the name of the corporation as an entity independent of those who supply the very largesee they will use!
 
Classic...the dummy neocons keep yelling that "corporations aren't people"....while everyone else is pointing out that "for donations purpose" the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United says they are. And since when investment bankers handle mergers for corporations, and their contracts name THE CORPORATION as the client and NOT the individual board members, the neocon dummies keep trying to ignore how the business aspects work here.

Funny, I don't see ANY 'neocons' yelling "corporations aren't people" and I continue to see you lying and saying the SCOTUS ruled corporations are the same as people! I think you have it backwards. I count 27 times in the past day, where I have posted that "corporations ARE people!" I've explained in painful detail how corporations have NO animate power of their own, that EVERY action taken by a corporation is initiated by PEOPLE and the corporation does NOTHING of its own volition. Consistently through this thread and others, it is YOU who is claiming corporations aren't people!
 
Funny, I don't see ANY 'neocons' yelling "corporations aren't people" and I continue to see you lying and saying the SCOTUS ruled corporations are the same as people! I think you have it backwards. I count 27 times in the past day, where I have posted that "corporations ARE people!" I've explained in painful detail how corporations have NO animate power of their own, that EVERY action taken by a corporation is initiated by PEOPLE and the corporation does NOTHING of its own volition. Consistently through this thread and others, it is YOU who is claiming corporations aren't people!

What's consistent is how YOU keep contradicting yourself.

You say "Corporations are people"

Then you say "the Scotus decision does not say that corporations are people".

Then you say that its about the 1st Amendment...which protects the right of PEOPLE. Then you say that the past decisions that gave corporations similar abilities in the past using the 14th Amendment are not relative.

In short, you don't know which way is up...but cling to your convoluted logic like a tick to a dog's ass. Pathetic....but not unexpected.

Here stupid, deal with another aspect of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100128/pl_usnw/DC45993

And when you bray the same tired lines again in some new fashion, I'll just ignore you. But do keep following me around like a frustrated little bitch....quite entertaining. I'll especially enjoy how you'll dance and BS around Christie's point. Carry on! :cof1:
 
Corporations ARE people.... Just like AARP are people... just like NAACP are people... just like ACLU are people... just like MoveOn.org are people! The fact they belong to a group, doesn't negate the fact they are people.
Corporations are made up of people,But the cooperate entity in my opinion is not a individual person even though their are some misguided and unconstitutional tax laws to say that they are.
 
Okay, hypothetical. Domino's Pizza was founded by an anti-abortion Catholic. Let's say Mr. Monaghan in the name of Domino's wants to donate to Republican candidates who are anti-abortion. (If that's not how it would work, please correct.) What about all the Domino's employees and management who don't think the same as Monaghan and don't want corporate money to go to those people?

The individuals who make up corporations already have freedom of speech. They can use their money to support anything they want. Why does a corporation, which is not a person, get what amounts to more rights?

The EXACT same argument can be made for any group.... AARP, UNIONS etc...

Do you think every union member approves of the way their dues are spent with regards to lobbying (aka... bribing) congressional stooges?
 
Corporations are made up of people,But the cooperate entity in my opinion is not a individual person even though their are some misguided and unconstitutional tax laws to say that they are.

Correct. Corporations, like unions, like PACs, like the AARP are pieces of paper.

All are organizations made up of people.
 
Correct. Corporations, like unions, like PACs, like the AARP are pieces of paper.

All are organizations made up of people.

But that doesn't mean the corporations represent the political desires of all those they employ. In fact, many employees fare worse when their ceo's are successful in their lobbying goals.
 
Originally Posted by christiefan915
Okay, hypothetical. Domino's Pizza was founded by an anti-abortion Catholic. Let's say Mr. Monaghan in the name of Domino's wants to donate to Republican candidates who are anti-abortion. (If that's not how it would work, please correct.) What about all the Domino's employees and management who don't think the same as Monaghan and don't want corporate money to go to those people?

The individuals who make up corporations already have freedom of speech. They can use their money to support anything they want. Why does a corporation, which is not a person, get what amounts to more rights?

The EXACT same argument can be made for any group.... AARP, UNIONS etc...

Do you think every union member approves of the way their dues are spent with regards to lobbying (aka... bribing) congressional stooges?

Which is why for the last century you've had laws similar to McCain-Feingold...to try and curtail such as to NOT have over-whelming advantage over the individual citizen.

The Citizen's United decision essentially takes the leash of corporations AND unions. That's why it's a BAD decision.
 
The EXACT same argument can be made for any group.... AARP, UNIONS etc...

Do you think every union member approves of the way their dues are spent with regards to lobbying (aka... bribing) congressional stooges?

For me, the difference is that people don't have to stay in AARP, unions or groups whose policies they oppose, but they don't have the same choice when it comes to the workplace. Quitting AARP isn't the same as quitting your job and losing everything that goes with it.
 
Which is why for the last century you've had laws similar to McCain-Feingold...to try and curtail such as to NOT have over-whelming advantage over the individual citizen.

The Citizen's United decision essentially takes the leash of corporations AND unions. That's why it's a BAD decision.

I do not disagree with your last couple of sentences. I just disagree with those who pretend that somehow it is just the corporations that this applies to. you know... the .... 'corporations is da evilllz' crowd.
 
Back
Top