How is austerity doing in Europe

[AmazonTania]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

That is true if you believe that corporations are people. And if you believe that money is speech. Most do not, but it is certainly a matter of opinion.

The issue for most that I have talked to, including pretty much all from other nations, is the concept that the wealthy have the ability to influence politics and the gov MUCH more than those with less money. Or, said another way, few individuals have a million to spend in each of several places from an electoral point of view.

And yup, I know, Citizens United was found for corporations having the right to spend as they wanted, saying essentially that money is speech. But then, as we probably all agree, the supreme court is pretty much made up of politicians in robes.

It's not a matter of what the opinions are. It's just a matter of classical law.

Corporations are not literally people. No one thinks they are. Not even the Supreme Court thinks they are. But Corporations have been given 'legal personhood' in purposes of the law for centuries all over the world, or at least in the case of the US Supreme Court decision of Darthmouth College vs Woodward. Treating corporations has people have already created great advantages to our society. Imagine if you didn't treat corporations as people. How could you possibly sue one if it did anything wrong on your behalf? You probably couldn't. You'd have to go around the country suing the millions of shareholders. No one thinks this is an efficient way to run a legal system.

Corporations are merely a group of people which have decided to get together and incorporate by combining land, labour and capital. Everyone has rights as people, and we still have rights even if we join together with other people.

As for money being speech, no one believes money is speech. But what if the Government said that you could practice any religion you wanted, but you couldn't spend any money to build churches or to engage in any missionary affairs? What if the Government said you're free to operate a newspaper are radio station, you just can't spend any money to do it? What if the government said you can speak on whatever political matters you want, but you can't buy a megaphone so everyone can hear your voice?

If the government controls the money, it can essentially control the speech, in not just politics, in virtually everything. The wealthy influential government is not true to the freedom of corporations being able to spend whatever they want. Increasingly, politics has become a specialised game for a selected elite group of people. It's very difficult for a true grassroots organisation to start a campaign. As a result, you have great political inequality.

 

[Rshermr]

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

That is true if you believe that corporations are people. And if you believe that money is speech. Most do not, but it is certainly a matter of opinion.

The issue for most that I have talked to, including pretty much all from other nations, is the concept that the wealthy have the ability to influence politics and the gov MUCH more than those with less money. Or, said another way, few individuals have a million to spend in each of several places from an electoral point of view.

And yup, I know, Citizens United was found for corporations having the right to spend as they wanted, saying essentially that money is speech. But then, as we probably all agree, the supreme court is pretty much made up of politicians in robes.

It's not a matter of what the opinions are. It's just a matter of classical law.

Corporations are not literally people. No one thinks they are. Not even the Supreme Court thinks they are. But Corporations have been given 'legal personhood' in purposes of the law for centuries all over the world, or at least in the case of the US Supreme Court decision of Darthmouth College vs Woodward. Treating corporations has people have already created great advantages to our society. Imagine if you didn't treat corporations as people. How could you possibly sue one if it did anything wrong on your behalf? You probably couldn't. You'd have to go around the country suing the millions of shareholders. No one thinks this is an efficient way to run a legal system.

Corporations are merely a group of people which have decided to get together and incorporate by combining land, labour and capital. Everyone has rights as people, and we still have rights even if we join together with other people.

As for money being speech, no one believes money is speech. But what if the Government said that you could practice any religion you wanted, but you couldn't spend any money to build churches or to engage in any missionary affairs? What if the Government said you're free to operate a newspaper are radio station, you just can't spend any money to do it? What if the government said you can speak on whatever political matters you want, but you can't buy a megaphone so everyone can hear your voice?

If the government controls the money, it can essentially control the speech, in not just politics, in virtually everything. The wealthy influential government is not true to the freedom of corporations being able to spend whatever they want. Increasingly, politics has become a specialised game for a selected elite group of people. It's very difficult for a true grassroots organisation to start a campaign. As a result, you have great political inequality.

I have worked for corporations over the years. Never had one ask me what they should spend their political dollars on. Never ever heard of that happening. They may consult with a couple on the board, but that would be about it. Those decesions are made at the highest levels. By those that run the corporation. So, if you think that corporations should be treated as people, then it is an opinion. That it has been upheld by the courts, yes it has. Again, the supreme court upheld it.
But the primary issue is what Citizens United decided. Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the court case that was brought to the supreme court. It was, in fact, truly legislating from the bench. But at any rate, the question is whether money is speech.

You mentioned that corporations have been given legal personhood all over the world?? Can you document where?? I can find no reference to any country. Only two entities have some such powers, those being the Vatican, the other being the City of London. But quite limited in both cases. And NO COUNTRIES except the us have granted corporations personhood status. Unless you can enlighten me.

And maybe I just can not find it. But there seem to be exactly zero countries where money is considered to be speech.

 

[Rshermr]

It looks to me like there should be a good chance to eliminate the citizens united decesion. Based on public polls, citizens united is quite unpopular.

"After citizens united, polls showed that 80% of the public disagreed with the decision."
Corporate Personhood in the Fast Lane: Jonathan Frieman, Citizen, Takes a Stand - WhoWhatWhy

"The Hart survey found broad, bipartisan support for the notion of amending the U.S. Constitution to affirm that corporations don’t have the same rights as people, effectively overturning Citizens United. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Republicans said they would support such an amendment."
Citizens United? Polls Show Bipartisan Agreement on Constitutional Amendment to Stop Corporate Election Spending ? YES! Magazine

"According to a new poll, "[f]ully 79% of voters support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people."
Citizens United and Corporate Personhood: The Problem Isn?t the Constitution, It?s the Court | Constitutional Accountability Center

So, who cares about opinions of people??? Why, politicians. Big time. And we should, after all, based on our claim to be a largely democratic country.

 

[jasonnfree]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

The government could have an agreed on price of funding of elections spread evenly among the parties.. No partiality. Enough for the candidates to get their message out. In the last 20 or 30 years the campaigning starts earlier and earlier thanks to the flood of money coming in. Pro Israel billionaire Adelson even went to Israel the same time that Romney did when he met with Netanyahu. Why? influence his candidate? Not that Obama's not backed by big money either. The corporate personhood is to conduct corporate business, sign contracts, and limit liability. It's gone way beyond that. Obama blatantly installs his CEO backers in cabinet positions. We wouldn't have this if we eliminated private funding of elections. My opinion anyway.

 

[AmazonTania]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

The government could have an agreed on price of funding of elections spread evenly among the parties.. No partiality. Enough for the candidates to get their message out. In the last 20 or 30 years the campaigning starts earlier and earlier thanks to the flood of money coming in. Pro Israel billionaire Adelson even went to Israel the same time that Romney did when he met with Netanyahu. Why? influence his candidate? Not that Obama's not backed by big money either. The corporate personhood is to conduct corporate business, sign contracts, and limit liability. It's gone way beyond that. Obama blatantly installs his CEO backers in cabinet positions. We wouldn't have this if we eliminated private funding of elections. My opinion anyway.

That's still a limit on Freedom of Speech. Who are campaigns aimed towards? They're not aimed towards the likely voters or even active political followers. Most people already have an idea of who they are going to vote for. It's the undecided or non active voters campaigns are trying to reach, and campaigns on all sides of the spectrum want to reach as many people as possible. There are over 30 forms of Speech regulated by the FEC. It's very costly to try and place your message on them all, let alone just a few.

The Federal Election Commission has hundreds of pages of regulations that one has to look through if one wants to learn how to run their campaign successfully without breaking any laws. How would this effect the average, grassroots campaign trying to get off the ground? Well, first you're going to have to hire a lawyer. Then you'd have to hire a skilled consultant. And then, you'd have to figure out how you're going to pay both of these people, because very few people are willing to offer this service as volunteers. You're going to have to come up with some money, and the only types of people who can use their resources for this are the wealthy.

If you want to understand why there is so much money in politics, look no further than the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974.

 

[AmazonTania]

That is true if you believe that corporations are people. And if you believe that money is speech. Most do not, but it is certainly a matter of opinion.

The issue for most that I have talked to, including pretty much all from other nations, is the concept that the wealthy have the ability to influence politics and the gov MUCH more than those with less money. Or, said another way, few individuals have a million to spend in each of several places from an electoral point of view.

And yup, I know, Citizens United was found for corporations having the right to spend as they wanted, saying essentially that money is speech. But then, as we probably all agree, the supreme court is pretty much made up of politicians in robes.

It's not a matter of what the opinions are. It's just a matter of classical law.

Corporations are not literally people. No one thinks they are. Not even the Supreme Court thinks they are. But Corporations have been given 'legal personhood' in purposes of the law for centuries all over the world, or at least in the case of the US Supreme Court decision of Darthmouth College vs Woodward. Treating corporations has people have already created great advantages to our society. Imagine if you didn't treat corporations as people. How could you possibly sue one if it did anything wrong on your behalf? You probably couldn't. You'd have to go around the country suing the millions of shareholders. No one thinks this is an efficient way to run a legal system.

Corporations are merely a group of people which have decided to get together and incorporate by combining land, labour and capital. Everyone has rights as people, and we still have rights even if we join together with other people.

As for money being speech, no one believes money is speech. But what if the Government said that you could practice any religion you wanted, but you couldn't spend any money to build churches or to engage in any missionary affairs? What if the Government said you're free to operate a newspaper are radio station, you just can't spend any money to do it? What if the government said you can speak on whatever political matters you want, but you can't buy a megaphone so everyone can hear your voice?

If the government controls the money, it can essentially control the speech, in not just politics, in virtually everything. The wealthy influential government is not true to the freedom of corporations being able to spend whatever they want. Increasingly, politics has become a specialised game for a selected elite group of people. It's very difficult for a true grassroots organisation to start a campaign. As a result, you have great political inequality.

I have worked for corporations over the years. Never had one ask me what they should spend their political dollars on. Never ever heard of that happening. They may consult with a couple on the board, but that would be about it. Those decesions are made at the highest levels. By those that run the corporation. So, if you think that corporations should be treated as people, then it is an opinion. That it has been upheld by the courts, yes it has. Again, the supreme court upheld it.

Working for a Corporation is not the same as being part of one. Corporations are made up of Executives, Directors and Shareholders.

But the primary issue is what Citizens United decided. Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the court case that was brought to the supreme court. It was, in fact, truly legislating from the bench. But at any rate, the question is whether money is speech.

As long as you have Freedom of Speech, and money is used as a means of expression one's self, then yes. Money is speech. Ultimately, the Government is advocating for the power to ban books or movies if it contained even one line of political advocacy.

And it's not legislation from the bench. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of legal personhood before. Stare Decisis binds future Supreme Court decisions by rulings made in the past, unless there is a clear distinction between the current case and the previous cases. Darthmouth College vs Woodward is the precedent the Supreme Court must follow, and this Supreme Court decision has never been overturned in nearly 200 years.

You mentioned that corporations have been given legal personhood all over the world?? Can you document where?? I can find no reference to any country. Only two entities have some such powers, those being the Vatican, the other being the City of London. But quite limited in both cases. And NO COUNTRIES except the us have granted corporations personhood status. Unless you can enlighten me.

All nations which have adopted Common Law (basically CommonWealth nations) have adopted legal personhood for the legal right to enter contracts, sue or be sued. These are countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. There are two types of legal personality: natural persons and group of persons.

Because shareholders of a corporations enjoy limited liability, they were not considered responsible for the debts of the company. In the court of law it was argued because a corporate defendent could not be sued because they were not persons. To resolve the issue, early courts system created a framework of legal personhood. Corporations could sue, be sued and shareholders could be held accountable for the debts of the company.

Being able to hold corporations accountable is not the only advantage. It also allows corporations to buy and sell property without without having to re-title the property every time someone sells their stock. It allows people to poor their resources to create new products for the marketplace.

And maybe I just can not find it. But there seem to be exactly zero countries where money is considered to be speech.

Which is why the first amendment is very valuable. In many countries, can be restricted and infringed upon very easily. Perhaps you should think twice before taking it for granted.

 

[itfitzme]

So is there ever a chance of getting money out of politics or is that just a dream?

Not if you enjoy Free Speech. If the Government controls the amount of money in politics, it controls the amount of speech.

The government could have an agreed on price of funding of elections spread evenly among the parties.. No partiality. Enough for the candidates to get their message out. In the last 20 or 30 years the campaigning starts earlier and earlier thanks to the flood of money coming in. Pro Israel billionaire Adelson even went to Israel the same time that Romney did when he met with Netanyahu. Why? influence his candidate? Not that Obama's not backed by big money either. The corporate personhood is to conduct corporate business, sign contracts, and limit liability. It's gone way beyond that. Obama blatantly installs his CEO backers in cabinet positions. We wouldn't have this if we eliminated private funding of elections. My opinion anyway.

We get what we pay for, and if we aren't paying for governance, law and politics through taxes, then we aren't going to get governance, law and politics that is in our interest.

And the concept of no government, no governance, is absurd. Try to take away government and all your gonna get is "not your government". Someone is going to be governing you, someone with money, someone with power. It is either government of the people, by the people, for the people, or it is someone else governing you (us).

"Smaller government" means not your government, someone elses government. We can guarantee, if you don't want government, someone else will be quite happy to have a government that is governing you. And it will be either overt and obvious, or it will be subtle and manipulative. Indeed, the less government you have, the more overt and obvious will be the governance of you, by someone else.

Currently, it is obviously, corporations doing the governing, and why not, they have a vested interest in the economics. But they aren't in it for you. Whom ever owns the corporations, funds the the government through lobbiest monies because we don't fund it adequately through taxes.

You get what you pay for, and if "the people" don't want to pay for it through taxes, someone else will happily pay for it so they get what they want.

 

[jasonnfree]

I remember in the 90's when Clinton was in the white house. Dozens of visits by Chinaman Johnny Chung. It was out in the open how Clinton was getting support from red china. All because of elections being bought by influential, wealthy people and the politicians don't care where the money comes from. Back to corporations. Does anybody think that the words 'We the people" in the preamble of the constitution were meant to include corporations? Especially after the trouble the colonists had with the East India Tea company? Getting money out of politics and having a taxpayer fund for campaigns would be better in the long run. We the people would still vote. Maybe more people would vote and take interest in government affairs if they knew their politicians weren't bought and paid for by big money.

 

[AmazonTania]

The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.

 

[jasonnfree]

The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.

But we know who our elected officials are. There's some accountabllity there. Such as elections. What do you do when there are thousands of lobbyists operating under the radar with no accountability and operating with the profit motive in mind. With taxpayer funded elections this could be eliminated.

 

[AmazonTania]

The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.

But we know who our elected officials are. There's some accountabllity there. Such as elections. What do you do when there are thousands of lobbyists operating under the radar with no accountability and operating with the profit motive in mind. With taxpayer funded elections this could be eliminated.

The idea that Government is only accountable to the people, instead of corporations is not exactly true. Government collusion with Corporations is the direct result of Government power. Corporations want the influence. Government has the power. Corporations want to buy that influence and Government is willing to sell that power. Without the government power, corporations will have no power to compete for, less privileges to seek, fewer subsidies to enjoy and no agencies to capture.

 

[Rshermr]

It's not a matter of what the opinions are. It's just a matter of classical law.

Corporations are not literally people. No one thinks they are. Not even the Supreme Court thinks they are. But Corporations have been given 'legal personhood' in purposes of the law for centuries all over the world, or at least in the case of the US Supreme Court decision of Darthmouth College vs Woodward. Treating corporations has people have already created great advantages to our society. Imagine if you didn't treat corporations as people. How could you possibly sue one if it did anything wrong on your behalf? You probably couldn't. You'd have to go around the country suing the millions of shareholders. No one thinks this is an efficient way to run a legal system.

Corporations are merely a group of people which have decided to get together and incorporate by combining land, labour and capital. Everyone has rights as people, and we still have rights even if we join together with other people.

As for money being speech, no one believes money is speech. But what if the Government said that you could practice any religion you wanted, but you couldn't spend any money to build churches or to engage in any missionary affairs? What if the Government said you're free to operate a newspaper are radio station, you just can't spend any money to do it? What if the government said you can speak on whatever political matters you want, but you can't buy a megaphone so everyone can hear your voice?

If the government controls the money, it can essentially control the speech, in not just politics, in virtually everything. The wealthy influential government is not true to the freedom of corporations being able to spend whatever they want. Increasingly, politics has become a specialised game for a selected elite group of people. It's very difficult for a true grassroots organisation to start a campaign. As a result, you have great political inequality.

I have worked for corporations over the years. Never had one ask me what they should spend their political dollars on. Never ever heard of that happening. They may consult with a couple on the board, but that would be about it. Those decesions are made at the highest levels. By those that run the corporation. So, if you think that corporations should be treated as people, then it is an opinion. That it has been upheld by the courts, yes it has. Again, the supreme court upheld it.

Working for a Corporation is not the same as being part of one. Corporations are made up of Executives, Directors and Shareholders.

So, only the execs, directors, and stockholders get to decide. Got it. Employees are not part of the corporation. Executives are. Got it. Dumb idea, and one very few believe in. It is a total travesty of the concept of democracy. But, it is a conservative dream. Got the money, buy the votes you want. Great deal.



As long as you have Freedom of Speech, and money is used as a means of expression one's self, then yes. Money is speech. Ultimately, the Government is advocating for the power to ban books or movies if it contained even one line of political advocacy.

And it's not legislation from the bench. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of legal personhood before. Stare Decisis binds future Supreme Court decisions by rulings made in the past, unless there is a clear distinction between the current case and the previous cases. Darthmouth College vs Woodward is the precedent the Supreme Court must follow, and this Supreme Court decision has never been overturned in nearly 200 years.

Here is the thing: Over time, the courts have had many issues related to corporations being people to consider. Including that Dartmouth case. But those were cases brought through the courts to the supreme court. They did not originate there. And they had NOTHING to do with citizens united. Citizens United did not address whether corporations were people.

What is legislating from the bench has been clearly established for decades. It was always a conservative issue. The supreme court should consider lower court decesions. Or revise current legislation. Citizens united was a supreme court decision not on whether corporations were people, but whether money was speech. You need to get your facts straight. And at that point, you will find that Citizens United was indeed legislating from the bench. Simple as can be. Flies directly in the face of what you just stated. Because, you see, they were not considering prior law but MAKING new law.

You mentioned that corporations have been given legal personhood all over the world?? Can you document where?? I can find no reference to any country. Only two entities have some such powers, those being the Vatican, the other being the City of London. But quite limited in both cases. And NO COUNTRIES except the us have granted corporations personhood status. Unless you can enlighten me.

All nations which have adopted Common Law (basically CommonWealth nations) have adopted legal personhood for the legal right to enter contracts, sue or be sued. These are countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. There are two types of legal personality: natural persons and group of persons.

Because shareholders of a corporations enjoy limited liability, they were not considered responsible for the debts of the company. In the court of law it was argued because a corporate defendent could not be sued because they were not persons. To resolve the issue, early courts system created a framework of legal personhood. Corporations could sue, be sued and shareholders could be held accountable for the debts of the company.

Being able to hold corporations accountable is not the only advantage. It also allows corporations to buy and sell property without without having to re-title the property every time someone sells their stock. It allows people to poor their resources to create new products for the marketplace.

PLEASE. I think we all understand the protections that corporations provide. What your post states is that corporations around the world have been given personhood power by many other governments. Personhood is the issue. Not the law related to corporations.

And maybe I just can not find it. But there seem to be exactly zero countries where money is considered to be speech.

Which is why the first amendment is very valuable. In many countries, can be restricted and infringed upon very easily. Perhaps you should think twice before taking it for granted.

Sorry. You are avoiding the issue. Again, can you provide a country that has provided corporations the rights of personhood related to voting and political contributions???

What I took for granted, and what most people of the world take for granted still, is that politicians and political issues can not be purchased by the rich. That the wealthy do not have more power to control politics than the general public. So, related to Citizens United, can you name a country that allows corporations the same rights as natural people?

 

[AmazonTania]

Why can't you ever respond to post organised like the rest of us normal people...

So, only the execs, directors, and stockholders get to decide. Got it. Employees are not part of the corporation. Executives are. Got it. Dumb idea, and one very few believe in. It is a total travesty of the concept of democracy. But, it is a conservative dream. Got the money, buy the votes you want. Great deal.

You are an employee. If you are not one of the owners of the corporation, then you do not have any say in where the company's resources are allocated. It’s not a matter of democracy. It’s a matter of private property rights.

If you don't like it, that’s tough. Next time just purchase some shares when a stock option opportunity presents itself and you'll have all the voting rights you want as a shareholder.

Here is the thing: Over time, the courts have had many issues related to corporations being people to consider. Including that Dartmouth case. But those were cases brought through the courts to the supreme court. They did not originate there. And they had NOTHING to do with citizens united. Citizens United did not address whether corporations were people.

What is legislating from the bench has been clearly established for decades. It was always a conservative issue. The supreme court should consider lower court decesions. Or revise current legislation. Citizens united was a supreme court decision not on whether corporations were people, but whether money was speech. You need to get your facts straight. And at that point, you will find that Citizens United was indeed legislating from the bench. Simple as can be. Flies directly in the face of what you just stated. Because, you see, they were not considering prior law but MAKING new law.

Plenty of laws in the current US Code/US Register, as well as previous Supreme Court cases were considered in Citizens United vs. FEC. You are extremely misinformed.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

And the Court Case does deal with the issue of Corporations having legal personality. Didn't you even read about the case?

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

PLEASE. I think we all understand the protections that corporations provide. What your post states is that corporations around the world have been given personhood power by many other governments. Personhood is the issue. Not the law related to corporations.

The law relating to corporations is where corporate personhood derives. This was also explained to you.

Sorry. You are avoiding the issue. Again, can you provide a country that has provided corporations the rights of personhood related to voting and political contributions???

Corporate personhood means corporations mostly the same rights have humans. Elections are only limited to individuals: One person, one vote; however, if individuals may give political contributions, then so may corporations. If individuals may enter contracts, so may corporations. If individuals may sue, so may corporations.

Get it now?

What I took for granted, and what most people of the world take for granted still, is that politicians and political issues can not be purchased by the rich. That the wealthy do not have more power to control politics than the general public. So, related to Citizens United, can you name a country that allows corporations the same rights as natural people?

I've already told you, any country which follows Common Law (as opposed to Civil Law) adopts legal personality in regard to many institutions. Countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

I really don't see the point in responding if you just ignore what was previously said.

 

[Rshermr]

So, tania says:

Plenty of laws in the current US Code/US Register, as well as previous Supreme Court cases were considered in Citizens United vs. FEC. You are extremely misinformed.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

And the Court Case does deal with the issue of Corporations having legal personality. Didn't you even read about the case?

Yes, indeed. I did understand exactly what Citizens United was about. The court case was brought to allow a conservative movie, called Hillary: The Movie to be run just prior to elections. That was against FEC law which was found against the conservative group that brought the case. The Citizens United group appealed that decision, and the supreme court made the decision to take things to a NEW level. They did not decide on the Citizens united case relative to running that movie. Rather, they opened new considerations, specifically relative to speech and money. The court found against previous settled law relative to political contributions. And established NEW LAW. That would be, of course, legislating from the bench.
If you cared to understand, you would read the following:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Frequently Asked Questions - Common Cause

Then, Amazon makes the following statement:

The law relating to corporations is where corporate personhood derives. This was also explained to you.

Perhaps you would like to quote that law, me dear. In general, it is thought to be the 14th Amendment. Which provides NO SUCH rights to corporations. The corporate rights that exist were decided by cases brought by corporations over a large number of years, providing them with some extent of personhood rights, in the US only. But, in fact, until citizens united, corporations lacked the right to contribute to political activities in the same way as natural citizens. Because of the speech part of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Not the 14th Amendment, me dear, the FIRST.

So, then Amazon says:

Corporate personhood means corporations mostly the same rights have humans. Elections are only limited to individuals: One person, one vote; however, if individuals may give political contributions, then so may corporations. If individuals may enter contracts, so may corporations. If individuals may sue, so may corporations.

Get it now?

Yes indeed. Always did understand. You are saying that corporations have the right to enter into contracts and may sue. Nothing new there. And no one is really concerned about those rights. They are rights required to do business. However, where you are stretching things beyond rationality, is political contributions. You may have noted that so far, corporations can not vote. And this is the issue, me dear. Corporations are not natural people. And in NO NATION YOU CAN NAME are they provided the right to give unlimited contributions for political reasons.
So, DO YOU get it now??? Something over 80% of our population does. Here, and in the rest of the world, people understand clearly that providing the rights given by Citizens United provided corporations and others the right to buy elections.


Then, continuing to avoid the subject, Amazon says:

I've already told you, any country which follows Common Law (as opposed to Civil Law) adopts legal personality in regard to many institutions. Countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

I really don't see the point in responding if you just ignore what was previously said.

You have been discussing 14th amendment issues. As you well know, that had to do with contract rights and ability to sue. Citizens United was a FIRST AMENDMENT[/B] finding. Brand new, me dear. Nothing to do with corporate contract rights. New law altogether. BUT RATHER, A NEW RIGHT FOR CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY PREVIOUS LAW. It required striking down prior law, and enacting New Law straight from the bench.

So, perhaps you would like to explain why organizations should have the right to give ANONYMOUS UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS that the vast, vast majority of the population could not possibly accomplish?

Now, where is there another nation that allows corporate or other large organizations to provide unlimited contributions to the candidates and causes of their choice??

 

[jasonnfree]

The power to regulate the economy is naturally the same as the power distribute favours. As long as the people grant the Government the ability to pick winners and losers, the winners will always be the very wealthy and politically connected. As a result, you will always have money in politics.

But we know who our elected officials are. There's some accountabllity there. Such as elections. What do you do when there are thousands of lobbyists operating under the radar with no accountability and operating with the profit motive in mind. With taxpayer funded elections this could be eliminated.

The idea that Government is only accountable to the people, instead of corporations is not exactly true. Government collusion with Corporations is the direct result of Government power. Corporations want the influence. Government has the power. Corporations want to buy that influence and Government is willing to sell that power. Without the government power, corporations will have no power to compete for, less privileges to seek, fewer subsidies to enjoy and no agencies to capture.

But this is what I've been referring to. If corporations couldn't lobby congresspeople, donate to their campaigns, and offer them jobs when they finish their terms in office, then government would be accountable to the people instead of corporations.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yes, indeed. I did understand exactly what Citizens United was about. The court case was brought to allow a conservative movie, called Hillary: The Movie to be run just prior to elections. That was against FEC law which was found against the conservative group that brought the case. The Citizens United group appealed that decision, and the supreme court made the decision to take things to a NEW level. They did not decide on the Citizens united case relative to running that movie. Rather, they opened new considerations, specifically relative to speech and money. The court found against previous settled law relative to political contributions. And established NEW LAW. That would be, of course, legislating from the bench.
If you cared to understand, you would read the following:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Frequently Asked Questions - Common Cause

Again, it's not a matter of legislating from the bench. The Law was found unconstitutional. Just because congress automatically creates a law doesn't make it unconstitutional immediately. The law in it's current form has to be appealed in circuit courts and then eventually taken to the higher courts. That's when laws are examined line by line, statute by statute.

If the law conflicts with the constitution, then it becomes unconstitutional and the law is removed from the US Code. It's like if a state passes a referendum which becomes the law of the state, but it turns out that the law is very discriminatory against a particular group of people (or groups). Under the US constitution, you are not allowed to create such laws and the law will be struck down.

There are plenty of laws which did actually become law and the Supreme Court strikes the law down. Some decisions I have found agreeable, and others I have not. That's how it works. You really should familiarise yourself with your own legal system. There is really no excuse why a foreigner like me should have more familiarity than you.

Perhaps you would like to quote that law, me dear.

Ugh!

1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth | Title 1 - General Provisions | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

In general, it is thought to be the 14th Amendment. Which provides NO SUCH rights to corporations. The corporate rights that exist were decided by cases brought by corporations over a large number of years, providing them with some extent of personhood rights, in the US only. But, in fact, until citizens united, corporations lacked the right to contribute to political activities in the same way as natural citizens. Because of the speech part of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Not the 14th Amendment, me dear, the FIRST.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.

Yes indeed. Always did understand. You are saying that corporations have the right to enter into contracts and may sue. Nothing new there. And no one is really concerned about those rights. They are rights required to do business. However, where you are stretching things beyond rationality, is political contributions. You may have noted that so far, corporations can not vote. And this is the issue, me dear. Corporations are not natural people. And in NO NATION YOU CAN NAME are they provided the right to give unlimited contributions for political reasons.

Once again, I am left explaining something to you which I have already explained in the past. No, corporations are not natural people. No one believes they are, not even the Supreme Court. They have what is called a type of 'legal personality,' and I've already mentioned there are two different types of legal personality: natural persons and a group of persons.

Corporations, like unions, are made up of a group of people, and as a group of people, they have the same rights as you and I individually. Do you lose your rights simply because you are an individual? If your answer is no, then why do you believe people should lose their rights simply because they join with other people?

So, DO YOU get it now??? Something over 80% of our population does. Here, and in the rest of the world, people understand clearly that providing the rights given by Citizens United provided corporations and others the right to buy elections.

There isn't an actual unlimited amount of money individuals, or corporations, can give. Depending upon which entity is receiving the money there are limits for all persons. As of now, individuals (including corporations) can give unlimited amount of money to Super PACs. Otherwise, there are federal, state and local limits, depending upon who is doing the donating and to whom. This unlimited mantra is just scare tactics created by partisan hacks.

I am not aware of any other nations with restrictions or limits on campaign contributions provided by corporations. I know in Australia there was a threshold on the amount regarding campaign contributions, up to $10,000; however this is a limit on all persons. In Canada, the limit per person is $1,100 but there are many loopholes which allow individuals to donate 100 times that amount.

The amount of campaign contributes anyone can make always varies from case to case, nation to nation. Some nations have limits and some nations do not. It is still the case that Corporations can provide campaign funds just as a regular person could.

You have been discussing 14th amendment issues. As you well know, that had to do with contract rights and ability to sue. Citizens United was a FIRST AMENDMENT[/B] finding. Brand new, me dear. Nothing to do with corporate contract rights. New law altogether. BUT RATHER, A NEW RIGHT FOR CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY PREVIOUS LAW. It required striking down prior law, and enacting New Law straight from the bench.

There was no law straight from the bench. We have a law in the US Code which firmly re-enforces the rights of Corporations legal personality, and Supreme Court Cases. The law which restricted corporate financing in campaign was unconstitutional. Sooner or later, you'll have to come to terms with that.

So, perhaps you would like to explain why organizations should have the right to give ANONYMOUS UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS that the vast, vast majority of the population could not possibly accomplish?

There was nothing preventing individuals from contributing vast amounts of money before. Absolutely nothing. Candidate Barack Obama raised $750 Million dollars, and he did it without financing from Corporations or Unions. $656 Million of that financing were from individual donations, if we accept the premise that all of his donations were legitimately US originated.

If a private individual separately can do it, then a corporation should be able to do it as well. This also means that unions should be able to do it, and companies should be able to do it as well. On our own, we all have rights and we have rights even if we gather with other people. Restricting the rights of corporations sets a dangerous precedent that the Government can ban any form of intellectual property it wishes, simply because it contained on queue of political advocacy.

This may be something you want as 'non-partisan' as you would like to be, but people have the right to express their opinions about everything, especially politics. People have the right to express their political opinions through music, through movies, writings, and even though who they choose to finance/support.

 

[AmazonTania]

But we know who our elected officials are. There's some accountabllity there. Such as elections. What do you do when there are thousands of lobbyists operating under the radar with no accountability and operating with the profit motive in mind. With taxpayer funded elections this could be eliminated.

The idea that Government is only accountable to the people, instead of corporations is not exactly true. Government collusion with Corporations is the direct result of Government power. Corporations want the influence. Government has the power. Corporations want to buy that influence and Government is willing to sell that power. Without the government power, corporations will have no power to compete for, less privileges to seek, fewer subsidies to enjoy and no agencies to capture.

But this is what I've been referring to. If corporations couldn't lobby congresspeople, donate to their campaigns, and offer them jobs when they finish their terms in office, then government would be accountable to the people instead of corporations.

Corporations as individuals can lobby congress. CEO's have done it for decades. That's really distinction without a difference.

There will always be special interest, no matter what you do. Limiting government's power is better than increasing it to police all campaign financing. Increasing it will just limit the favors handed out to the politically connected.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tania says:

I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.

You brought up the cases that were ALL ABOUT THE 14th. They were NOT about the 1st amendment. That would be why, me dear. OBVIOUSLY. Again, and please try to concentrate, those cases were about the ability to sue and to enter into contracts. Sorry you can not understand this. And citizens united, again, was about free speech. Allowing corporate money to be speech.

So, what you are saying is that because corporations got decesions allowing them rights as citizens related to doing business, that they should also have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts anonymously on political issues because they have the right of speech?? Just wonder where the hell your head is.
Then, tania again said:

Corporations, like unions, are made up of a group of people, and as a group of people, they have the same rights as you and I individually. Do you lose your rights simply because you are an individual? If your answer is no, then why do you believe people should lose their rights simply because they join with other people?

So, apparently you did not read the information provided. Again, you are unwilling to listen to anything that does not fit in your desired agenda. No, me dear. Since corporations are not natural persons, they did not, prior to Citizens United, have the rights that the supreme court decided to give corporations. That was indeed. NEW LAW. It was not decided in lower courts, and given to the supreme court to decide if it was correct. It was COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Then, Tania makes this really, really interesting post:

There isn't an actual unlimited amount of money individuals, or corporations, can give. Depending upon which entity is receiving the money there are limits for all persons. As of now, individuals (including corporations) can give unlimited amount of money to Super PACs. Otherwise, there are federal, state and local limits, depending upon who is doing the donating and to whom. This unlimited mantra is just scare tactics created by partisan hacks.

Now, that, me dear, is an excellent example of how to lie without actually saying anything that is not at least partially true. You must know, assuming you have any brain activity, that the issue IS about giving money to pac's. Corporations do not want to be seen as giving huge amounts to corporations. BY GIVING TO PAC'S, THEIR DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS. Even you have to admit this. Well, maybe not, who knows what you are willing to say.

Then, continuing to ignore the truth, tania says:

I am not aware of any other nations with restrictions or limits on campaign contributions provided by corporations. I know in Australia there was a threshold on the amount regarding campaign contributions, up to $10,000; however this is a limit on all persons. In Canada, the limit per person is $1,100 but there are many loopholes which allow individuals to donate 100 times that amount.

The amount of campaign contributes anyone can make always varies from case to case, nation to nation. Some nations have limits and some nations do not. It is still the case that Corporations can provide campaign funds just as a regular person could.

I suppose that is as close to an admission that there are no nations that allow unlimited corporate contributions to political entities as we will get from you. Yes, it is indeed true, only in the us can corporations give unlimited contributions. And you would be aware if you simply did a search on the subject.

And yes, they can provide funds just as a regular person could. AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS UNITED IN 2010.

THEN, IN SUMMATION, AMAZON SAYS:

There was nothing preventing individuals from contributing vast amounts of money before. Absolutely nothing. Candidate Barack Obama raised $750 Million dollars, and he did it without financing from Corporations or Unions. $656 Million of that financing were from individual donations, if we accept the premise that all of his donations were legitimately US originated.

So, you were talking about what year, me dear???
Consider this NY Times quote:

Conservative groups alone, including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls around.

The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.

If a private individual separately can do it, then a corporation should be able to do it as well. That was and is not true. Except, it is stated as an opinion. So, ok. that is your opinion.This also means that unions should be able to do it, and companies should be able to do it as well. On our own, we all have rights and we have rights even if we gather with other people. Restricting the rights of corporations sets a dangerous precedent that the Government can ban any form of intellectual property it wishes, simply because it contained on queue of political advocacy.

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

 

[RKMBrown]

So, Tania says:

I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.

You brought up the cases that were ALL ABOUT THE 14th. They were NOT about the 1st amendment. That would be why, me dear. OBVIOUSLY. Again, and please try to concentrate, those cases were about the ability to sue and to enter into contracts. Sorry you can not understand this. And citizens united, again, was about free speech. Allowing corporate money to be speech.

So, what you are saying is that because corporations got decesions allowing them rights as citizens related to doing business, that they should also have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts anonymously on political issues because they have the right of speech?? Just wonder where the hell your head is.
Then, tania again said:

Corporations, like unions, are made up of a group of people, and as a group of people, they have the same rights as you and I individually. Do you lose your rights simply because you are an individual? If your answer is no, then why do you believe people should lose their rights simply because they join with other people?

So, apparently you did not read the information provided. Again, you are unwilling to listen to anything that does not fit in your desired agenda. No, me dear. Since corporations are not natural persons, they did not, prior to Citizens United, have the rights that the supreme court decided to give corporations. That was indeed. NEW LAW. It was not decided in lower courts, and given to the supreme court to decide if it was correct. It was COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Then, Tania makes this really, really interesting post:


Now, that, me dear, is an excellent example of how to lie without actually saying anything that is not at least partially true. You must know, assuming you have any brain activity, that the issue IS about giving money to pac's. Corporations do not want to be seen as giving huge amounts to corporations. BY GIVING TO PAC'S, THEIR DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS. Even you have to admit this. Well, maybe not, who knows what you are willing to say.

Then, continuing to ignore the truth, tania says:


I suppose that is as close to an admission that there are no nations that allow unlimited corporate contributions to political entities as we will get from you. Yes, it is indeed true, only in the us can corporations give unlimited contributions. And you would be aware if you simply did a search on the subject.

And yes, they can provide funds just as a regular person could. AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS UNITED IN 2010.

THEN, IN SUMMATION, AMAZON SAYS:

So, you were talking about what year, me dear???
Consider this NY Times quote:

Conservative groups alone, including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls around.

The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics.

If a private individual separately can do it, then a corporation should be able to do it as well. That was and is not true. Except, it is stated as an opinion. So, ok. that is your opinion.This also means that unions should be able to do it, and companies should be able to do it as well. On our own, we all have rights and we have rights even if we gather with other people. Restricting the rights of corporations sets a dangerous precedent that the Government can ban any form of intellectual property it wishes, simply because it contained on queue of political advocacy.

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

Why should a person give up their rights when they join a group of persons?

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tania says:

I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.

You brought up the cases that were ALL ABOUT THE 14th. They were NOT about the 1st amendment. That would be why, me dear. OBVIOUSLY. Again, and please try to concentrate, those cases were about the ability to sue and to enter into contracts. Sorry you can not understand this. And citizens united, again, was about free speech. Allowing corporate money to be speech.

So, what you are saying is that because corporations got decesions allowing them rights as citizens related to doing business, that they should also have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts anonymously on political issues because they have the right of speech?? Just wonder where the hell your head is.
Then, tania again said:

So, apparently you did not read the information provided. Again, you are unwilling to listen to anything that does not fit in your desired agenda. No, me dear. Since corporations are not natural persons, they did not, prior to Citizens United, have the rights that the supreme court decided to give corporations. That was indeed. NEW LAW. It was not decided in lower courts, and given to the supreme court to decide if it was correct. It was COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Then, Tania makes this really, really interesting post:


Now, that, me dear, is an excellent example of how to lie without actually saying anything that is not at least partially true. You must know, assuming you have any brain activity, that the issue IS about giving money to pac's. Corporations do not want to be seen as giving huge amounts to corporations. BY GIVING TO PAC'S, THEIR DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS. Even you have to admit this. Well, maybe not, who knows what you are willing to say.

Then, continuing to ignore the truth, tania says:


I suppose that is as close to an admission that there are no nations that allow unlimited corporate contributions to political entities as we will get from you. Yes, it is indeed true, only in the us can corporations give unlimited contributions. And you would be aware if you simply did a search on the subject.

And yes, they can provide funds just as a regular person could. AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS UNITED IN 2010.

THEN, IN SUMMATION, AMAZON SAYS:

So, you were talking about what year, me dear???
Consider this NY Times quote:

If a private individual separately can do it, then a corporation should be able to do it as well. That was and is not true. Except, it is stated as an opinion. So, ok. that is your opinion.This also means that unions should be able to do it, and companies should be able to do it as well. On our own, we all have rights and we have rights even if we gather with other people. Restricting the rights of corporations sets a dangerous precedent that the Government can ban any form of intellectual property it wishes, simply because it contained on queue of political advocacy.

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

Why should a person give up their rights when they join a group of persons?

What right did you think that they were giving up??? They still have EXACTLY the same rights after joining as before.