This pretty much disrespects the labor of every person. Once the funds are paid to them (and they are paid because they are owed), those are no longer "corporation funds," any more than the money paid to any vendor for a purchase are "corporation funds."Employees of a corporation do have indirect access to corporation funds...via their paycheck, at the very least.
Well, true.This pretty much disrespects the labor of every person. Once the funds are paid to them (and they are paid because they are owed), those are no longer "corporation funds," any more than the money paid to any vendor for a purchase are "corporation funds."
In what meaningful sense? That's like saying if you write me a check I have "access" to your bank account. Money flows into and out of every account in the country--do we all have "access" to everyone else's account?Well, true.
But that does not discount my point.
The employees work for the corporation to earn their pay, and the corporation pays them for their work.
With corporate funds.
As soon as said corporate funds are paid to the employee, they cease to become corporate funds...But it is still "access" to such funds.
Seems to me like the recent decision was 5-4 NOT 9-0If you think so. Not a single judge does.
Seems to me like the recent decision was 5-4 NOT 9-0
Well you were responding to Vader but I shoved my nose in on that point. :lol:I was referring to your views in general, not this decision.
Well you were responding to Vader but I shoved my nose in on that point. :lol:
Shall we look back at the vote tally on all of those "personhood" verdicts to see if even one judge dissented on them or would you prefer to withdraw that statement?
You're quite wrong. I won't bother proving it since another poster already did in post 551 and 553.But I’m not wrong.
Employees of a corporation do have indirect access to corporation funds...via their paycheck, at the very least.
They do not control those funds, except through how they do their jobs, which affects the company to a degree, depending on its size.
Only if you believe in corporate personhood. Otherwise, the economy should serve the people. Businesses are the engine of the economy but the people should be the owners of the ecomony just like a business owner is the owner of said business and the employees are the engine of that business. In our corporatocracy the people are simply consumers. We have lost control of our ecomony and now everything we do is for the benefit of corporations with the failed Reaganomics mantra of -what's good for corporations is good for the people.- We've seen time and again that this is not true and the evidence today is more clear than it's been since the 1920s. The stock market is up, productivity is up, wages are down and unemployment is up. We bailed out Wall Street to stop the damage, all of which proves that Reaganomics doesn't actually work.Both, as they are one and the same.
Yup.Obviously, some actions a corporation makes can cause harm to individuals or communities.
Nope. More often than not it's the policies of the corporation that allowed the individuals to do the actions and then the corporation promptly tries to cover it up. History provides us these facts.Additionally obvious is that those actions can be attributed to individuals working for said corporation.
So you DO see the problem and you agree that corps need regulation to keep them from doing harm to the economy.Our laws against such need reinforcement in some places, and perhaps rewriting (i.e. legislation) in others. And such laws need to be strictly enforced. Consequences need to be known and harsh, to discourage corporations from doing such.
You say it's not a problem of corporations and then tell us that corporations do "influence" politicians. So the bribing or blackmailing isn't the problem it's the guys who accept the bribes or go along with the blackmail. I say it's a problem with BOTH.This is not a problem of corporations. This is a problem of politicians.
Sure, corporations might be influencing politicians to an extent, and in some cases, a great extent. Their constituents need to fire them, if necessary.
Seriously, you are really grasping at straws.But corporate influence of politicians is simply a extension of individual influence, namely by those who control said corporation.
Who's free speech? The owner of the corporation or the corporations themselves? We know the owner has free speech as a person/citizen. If that owner was unemployed and didn't own the corporation would he still have his free speech protected? According to what you just said, the owner would have no free speech if he didn't own a corporation.To take away the use of their funds is to take away part of their free speech.
Who's free speech? The owner of the corporation or the corporations themselves? We know the owner has free speech as a person/citizen. If that owner was unemployed and didn't own the corporation would he still have his free speech protected? According to what you just said, the owner would have no free speech if he didn't own a corporation.
If you think so. Not a single judge does.
No I"m not. I couldn't be more on topic. I'm talking about the First Amendment.
Your views don't even reflect a strictly literal interpretation of the words as written.
Says you!
Actually, you're evading. We are NOT discussing freedom of religion. We are discussing corporate personhood.... my neo-liberal friend.
Wrong again! Our forefathers intended to protect the famers, citizens, and various other INDIVIDUALS that came to this land to avoid government persecution.
I am strictly interpreting the document as it was written by our forefathers.
Well, that would work as well except that in their supreme wisdom, the SCOTUS has decided that money = speech.Okay, try this on for size - you can have all the free speech you want, but you can't spend any of your money on it either. No soapbox, no megaphone, no ads, nothing. Just your voice.
I don't have a problem with a citizen wanting to spend their own money to buy ad space or a TV commercial, et al.. I disagree that Joe the CEO can take corporate funds and spend it to blackmail a candidate.I think a considerable portion of the concern over this ruling is the notion that people with a lot of money can buy elections--they can produce messages that leave false impressions but that saturate the political sphere. Anyone believe that?
The unbridled ability to communicate in proportion to one's wealth is bad for politics, assuming we believe that elections can be purchased by those who can dominate political communication.
So churches don't have freedom of religion, only people? And newspapers don't have freedom of speech, only people? And the government could confiscate corporate property without compensation?
You dodged these questions once, you'll do it again.
Well, that would work as well except that in their supreme wisdom, the SCOTUS has decided that money = speech.
But if it were possible for people to get unbiased news and then gather to discuss politics or print a pamphlet themselves and distribute it (freedom of press) and then go out and vote. That would be great... didn't we have such a system, once?
They are dealt with specifically in the first amendment.
Corporations aren't just groups--they are limited liability groups. Their ability to profit, to do harm, and to seek after their own best interest is unlimited, but their liability for bad actions is limited. When we offer them equal rights, we cannot also require of them equal responsibilities. That's a problem.Yes. And they are groups, not people. So that means groups are protected by the Constitution too. So saying that corporations have no rights because they aren't people doesn't wash.
Only if you believe in corporate personhood. Otherwise, the economy should serve the people. Businesses are the engine of the economy but the people should be the owners of the ecomony just like a business owner is the owner of said business and the employees are the engine of that business. In our corporatocracy the people are simply consumers.
We have lost control of our ecomony
and now everything we do is for the benefit of corporations with the failed Reaganomics
Corporations aren't just groups--they are limited liability groups. Their ability to profit, to do harm, and to seek after their own best interest is unlimited, but their liability for bad actions is limited. When we offer them equal rights, we cannot also require of them equal responsibilities. That's a problem.
Actually, there are all sorts of ways that speech is limited by responsibilities--you can't defame people, you can't incite to riot, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't use "fighting words." There are penalties including jail for some of these offenses.What legal responsibilities come with freedom of speech? What exactly are you legally required to do in order to have it? If you don't live up to those responsibilities, can your freedom of speech be taken away too?
Yeah, do you need me to provide the source?Did it?
Please quote where I said that. Nothing in what you quoted and then responded to has the word government nor implies it, yet you created a statement that I didn't say.So you want to the government to decide what's biased and what's not and let it suppress messages that it thinks the voters shouldn't hear.
What's scary is that you continually interpret what I say instead of just reading what I say, it's the same problem you have with the Constitution.Again, please read your own words. They should scare you.
No, it means THOSE "groups" (which aren't groups but ideas as you well noted in this very thread) are protected by the first amendment. I truly don't understand how you can continually dismiss this.Yes. And they are groups, not people. So that means groups are protected by the Constitution too. So saying that corporations have no rights because they aren't people doesn't wash.
Corporations aren't just groups--they are limited liability groups. Their ability to profit, to do harm, and to seek after their own best interest is unlimited, but their liability for bad actions is limited. When we offer them equal rights, we cannot also require of them equal responsibilities. That's a problem.
Actually, there are all sorts of ways that speech is limited by responsibilities--you can't defame people, you can't incite to riot, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't use "fighting words." There are penalties including jail for some of these offenses.
You can, of course, lie and distort in order to fool people, so long as you're influencing their votes rather than persuading them to buy a product. Doing more to allow this sort of thing on a grand scale seems like a bad idea.
If corporations can convince us that we need to use a product like mouthwash (which actually causes bad breath) because without it our social lives will crumble to the dust of loneliness, I don't think I want to trust them with more influence over politics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?