New Constitutional Ammendment

[mike beev]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

 

[dblack]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

"money is not speech" seems like a loaded phrase, but I'm in agreement that some of the fundamental rules of corporate charter need to be changed - in particular the nature of 'limited liability'. The people who profit from a corporation's misdeeds (investors) need to be held accountable for what their company is doing.

 

[Sallow]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

I like it mike.

But you have to learn to spell Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Heavens, no – super bad idea.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

If you really want to stop people from being able to sue corporations, go right ahead...

 

[Flopper]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Sounds good to me, however no constitutional amendment is going to be ratified in this political climate. The last major constitutional amendment to be ratified was the 26th amendment, ratified 40 years ago. It changed the voting age to 18.

 

[Sallow]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

If you really want to stop people from being able to sue corporations, go right ahead...

That wouldn't happen.

 

[MaggieMae]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Sounds good to me, however no constitutional amendment is going to be ratified in this political climate. The last major constitutional amendment to be ratified was the 26th amendment, ratified 40 years ago. It changed the voting age to 18.

I wish someone would try to set a new Constitutional Convention to consolidate all the modern issues that fall within the ambiguous purview of certain antiquated clauses in the Constitution that everyone squabbles over endlessly. The convention method works in reverse of the amendment process generated by Congress. A majorty of states together call for a convention to add various amendments, and thereafter the request is sent to Congress for approval. These days, waiting for Congress to initiate anything productive is laughable.

 

[Flopper]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Sounds good to me, however no constitutional amendment is going to be ratified in this political climate. The last major constitutional amendment to be ratified was the 26th amendment, ratified 40 years ago. It changed the voting age to 18.

I wish someone would try to set a new Constitutional Convention to consolidate all the modern issues that fall within the ambiguous purview of certain antiquated clauses in the Constitution that everyone squabbles over endlessly. The convention method works in reverse of the amendment process generated by Congress. A majorty of states together call for a convention to add various amendments, and thereafter the request is sent to Congress for approval. These days, waiting for Congress to initiate anything productive is laughable.

That makes sense only if the red and blue states can agree on anything. As court interpretations of the constitution grows, the people have less and less voice on how their government is run. The constitution needs to be looked at as a living document that changes as times change. IMHO, if the founding fathers were writing the constitution today, if would look quite different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Who is saying corporations are citizens? I have never seen anyone argue that corporations have the right to vote.

I will also point out that no one is saying money is speech. What the courts have rules is that money facilitates speech. The reason for that is, up until recently, it took millions of dollars to get something you said to an audience large enough to make a difference. You had to buy TV time, make an ad, get a camera, etc. That is changing now that people are able to use the internet and social media to get what they want to say out there, but money does still make it easier to be heard.

I guess that means that the answer to your question is no.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

"money is not speech" seems like a loaded phrase, but I'm in agreement that some of the fundamental rules of corporate charter need to be changed - in particular the nature of 'limited liability'. The people who profit from a corporation's misdeeds (investors) need to be held accountable for what their company is doing.

The reason limited liability works is it limits the backers of a business from loss if the business fails. It does not protect them from liability for wrongdoing or negligence. If you start holding investors liable for the actions of other people like you propose all that you will do is choke off all investment in anything.

 

[martybegan]

Please remember that except for 2 cases, the role of constitutional amendments has been to limit GOVERNMENTS power, the people's power. The only thing the consitution bans citizens from doing via amendment is owning slaves and transporting booze into dry state/local juristictions. Everything else is a limit on governmental power.

Laws are made to restrict people's actions, not amendments.

 

[MaggieMae]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Who is saying corporations are citizens? I have never seen anyone argue that corporations have the right to vote.

I will also point out that no one is saying money is speech. What the courts have rules is that money facilitates speech. The reason for that is, up until recently, it took millions of dollars to get something you said to an audience large enough to make a difference. You had to buy TV time, make an ad, get a camera, etc. That is changing now that people are able to use the internet and social media to get what they want to say out there, but money does still make it easier to be heard.

I guess that means that the answer to your question is no.

I think the OP was suggesting a reversal of the USSC decision in Citizens United where it ruled that corporations are deemed "people" with regard to political contributions.

 

[dblack]

The reason limited liability works is it limits the backers of a business from loss if the business fails. It does not protect them from liability for wrongdoing or negligence. If you start holding investors liable for the actions of other people like you propose all that you will do is choke off all investment in anything.

I don't think limited liability does work. At least not in the sense of just outcomes or honest market pressures. Loss is the only way investors can be held accountable for the wrongdoings or negligence of the people that run their businesses. The fact that this accountability is socialized via limited liability is at the heart of why corporations (as currently formulated) are damaging to a free society. It allows for companies that are too large and disconnected from the people who reap the benefits of their (potential) misdeeds.

Correcting this wouldn't necessarily mean choking off all investment - it depends on how it was done. But it would, and I believe should, give people something else to consider when they invest in a company. It should be a more serious commitment than merely placing a bet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do we need this new constitutional ammendment: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech"?

Who is saying corporations are citizens? I have never seen anyone argue that corporations have the right to vote.

I will also point out that no one is saying money is speech. What the courts have rules is that money facilitates speech. The reason for that is, up until recently, it took millions of dollars to get something you said to an audience large enough to make a difference. You had to buy TV time, make an ad, get a camera, etc. That is changing now that people are able to use the internet and social media to get what they want to say out there, but money does still make it easier to be heard.

I guess that means that the answer to your question is no.

I think the OP was suggesting a reversal of the USSC decision in Citizens United where it ruled that corporations are deemed "people" with regard to political contributions.

And I think the OP is an idiot. Didn't stop me from taking his question seriously though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The reason limited liability works is it limits the backers of a business from loss if the business fails. It does not protect them from liability for wrongdoing or negligence. If you start holding investors liable for the actions of other people like you propose all that you will do is choke off all investment in anything.

I don't think limited liability does work. At least not in the sense of just outcomes or honest market pressures. Loss is the only way investors can be held accountable for the wrongdoings or negligence of the people that run their businesses. The fact that this accountability is socialized via limited liability is at the heart of why corporations (as currently formulated) are damaging to a free society. It allows for companies that are too large and disconnected from the people who reap the benefits of their (potential) misdeeds.

Correcting this wouldn't necessarily mean choking off all investment - it depends on how it was done. But it would, and I believe should, give people something else to consider when they invest in a company. It should be a more serious commitment than merely placing a bet.

Why? If I go out and buy IBM stock, and someone that works for them then goes out and defrauds the government, why should I have to do more than loose my money? It is not like I engaged in a conspiracy to commit, or even had knowledge of, fraud before it happened.

 

[dblack]

Why? If I go out and buy IBM stock, and someone that works for them then goes out and defrauds the government, why should I have to do more than loose my money?

The same reason any business owner is responsible for the actions of their employees. I think investors in a company should be treated as something closer to partial owners of the business. I'm not saying every investor should be held responsible for the total liability of the company, but certainly a share. Other than artificially amplifying the power of corporations, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be.

 

[Flopper]

Why? If I go out and buy IBM stock, and someone that works for them then goes out and defrauds the government, why should I have to do more than loose my money?

The same reason any business owner is responsible for the actions of their employees. I think investors in a company should be treated as something closer to partial owners of the business. I'm not saying every investor should be held responsible for the total liability of the company, but certainly a share. Other than artificially amplifying the power of corporations, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be.

So, you're suggesting that corporation law should be changed to eliminate owner protection?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? If I go out and buy IBM stock, and someone that works for them then goes out and defrauds the government, why should I have to do more than loose my money?

The same reason any business owner is responsible for the actions of their employees. I think investors in a company should be treated as something closer to partial owners of the business. I'm not saying every investor should be held responsible for the total liability of the company, but certainly a share. Other than artificially amplifying the power of corporations, I can see no reason why they shouldn't be.

They are. The thing is, corporations were created to limit liability to the actual assets of the business. Eliminating that protection will eliminate investments in corporations.

 

[dblack]

They are. The thing is, corporations were created to limit liability to the actual assets of the business. Eliminating that protection will eliminate investments in corporations.

Why do you say that? Again, I'm not talking about 'unlimited' liability. Just something in between that, and what we have now. The circumstance I'm trying to avoid is something like the following:

If the sole owner of a business hired someone and told them "do whatever it takes to turn a profit", and the employee went out and did all kinds of unscrupulous acts, I assume you'd agree the owner should be held accountable. Well, I see something similar going on with corporations. That's why CEO's are paid so much. They're essentially hired guns, to do the dirty work of the investors, who reap the profits generated by the questionable practices of the executive officers of the corporation. I don't think it's right that the 'owners' of the corporation should be insulated from the activities from which they profit.