APP - should corporations have the same rights as citizens

should corporations have the same rights as citizens

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
whatever happened to one man (citizen) one vote

i say it is time to revoke the decision that corporations right to effect elections

corporate shareholders already have the vote, if of age

what about foreign corporations or corporations with non-citizens for shareholders
 
Last edited:
no, they should be considered a "person" only for their intended purpose, which would be business.....of course, the same rules should apply to non-profits......Sierra Club, Right to Life, Planned Parenthood, AARP, UAW........
 
corporations are a created entity through contract, much like any branch or form of republican government. There are no rights associated with it's creation, merely limited powers.
 
The purpose of a corporation is to create a single entity for the purposes of law. A single entity does NOT mean "person". The SCOTUS decision way back (can't think of the case at the moment) that granted "personhood" to a corporate entity has been WAY over interpreted. It's time to get back to reality instead of letting stupid legal fictions define society.
 
I tend to believe the decision is right. The corporation will not be speaking. It has no lips.

Paid actor spokespeople have the right to free speech. Will this change our political climate? hell ya. Hopefully this will be an enhancement of freedoms for all speech.

On du they were talking about foreign corporate ownership though. What about foreign owned corporations buying commercials. That I have a problem with. but I guess my argument could be used against me on this. "but the paid actor in the commercial has the right to free speech, like you said AHZ. " I know I know.

I would like to see some provision against corporations with ANY foreign ownership being allowed to produce commercials.
 
Im going in to political ad production. THis market will be booming.

But I will mostly likely have to hide my populist beliefs to get hired.

Ill pretend to be neocon/liberal fascist globalist elitist shithead if I have too. I used to be one fore real.

RtWngAvngr. a whole brain ago.
 
no, not the same rights. but the overwhelming case law is that corps are extended 1st amendment rights. i have no problem with this, if you want to deny corporations the 1st amendment, then you need to deny unions, political parties or any other organization that does not exist except by the laws that allow its creation.

i'm not positive that political parties have to incorporate, but the DNC party appears to be incorporated

DNC Services Corporation
http://my.democrats.org/page/content/partybuilderPF/
Click to expand...

even if they are not incorporated, if we don't want corps to have the ability to pay for politcal ads, then neither should any group or organization.
 
Personally, I'm looking forward to Saudi - Aramco, Gazprom, PetroChina and myriad other foreign-owned corporations bankrolling candidates for public office. That should work out well for the U.S.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Personally, I'm looking forward to Saudi - Aramco, Gazprom, PetroChina and myriad other foreign-owned corporations bankrolling candidates for public office. That should work out well for the U.S.
Click to expand...

you need to read the decision, corps/unions cannot give money to candidates, the decision is only about speech, eg, advertising
 
Yurt said:
you need to read the decision, corps/unions cannot give money to candidates, the decision is only about speech, eg, advertising
Click to expand...


What practical effect does that distinction have? Instead of giving money directly they can act as a candidate's PR firm. That's even better since it gives the candidate plausible deniability.


Edit: I admittedly haven't read the entirety of the decision, but I fail to see on what basis the Court can now say that corporations are limited in what they can give directly to candidates. There is a case currently wending its way up to the Supreme Court that was filed by the RNC to challenge the soft-money ban. The logical extension of this case is that the soft-money ban is going to be struck down and direct contributions to candidates upheld.
 
Last edited:
maybe this decision is all bad. Im conflicted. I need h.e.l.p.

dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People.
 
NigelTufnel said:
What practical effect does that distinction have? Instead of giving money directly they can act as a candidate's PR firm. That's even better since it gives the candidate plausible deniability.


Edit: I admittedly haven't read the entirety of the decision, but I fail to see on what basis the Court can now say that corporations are limited in what they can give directly to candidates. There is a case currently wending its way up to the Supreme Court that was filed by the RNC to challenge the soft-money ban. The logical extension of this case is that the soft-money ban is going to be struck down and direct contributions to candidates upheld.
Click to expand...

it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?
 
Yurt said:
it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?
Click to expand...

You were also against cross state purchasing of insurance, no?
 
Yurt said:
it is a distinction in fact. corps will have to disclose that it is not paid for by the candidate, just as when political parties make ads. are you claiming that political parties bankroll candidates?

as i said, the issue was about speech, not donations. donations can be restricted without having a 1st amendment violation.

did you have a problem with obama's half hour prime time speech? do you have a problem that political parties can run political ads?
Click to expand...

while we're at it, how about disclosure on shell corporations....I would like to know when a commercial is being paid for by Exxon instead of some "Council of Citizens Concerned About Public Safety, Inc."
 
PostmodernProphet said:
while we're at it, how about disclosure on shell corporations....I would like to know when a commercial is being paid for by Exxon instead of some "Council of Citizens Concerned About Public Safety, Inc."
Click to expand...

absolutely, if there is a parent corp or the corp is funded/created by another corp, all corporation involvement must be disclosed...that leads to a more informed populace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top