What are "corporations" if not people?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

 

[OODA_Loop]

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

Yes it was.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Just like if you incorporate you can still produce art, songs, books, posters, dance routines and be protected in your free expression.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The case was about "government . . .restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions". The movie was in and of itself immaterial. The issue just as easily could have been the production of a political pamphlet that violated federal statute.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

Yes it was.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The Government did not try to prohibit Citizens United right to incorporate and produce a movie. Citizens United wanted to air a film in violation of the law. Citizens United challenged campaign finance law in the courts.

The case was never about the right to incorporate to produce a film.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just like if you incorporate you can still produce art, songs, books, posters, dance routines and be protected in your free expression.

There never was a law against producing the film or even showing the film.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Government did not try to prohibit Citizens United right to incorporate and produce a movie. Citizens United wanted to air a film in violation of the law. Citizens United challenged campaign finance law in the courts.

The case was never about the right to incorporate to produce a film.

Didn't claim it was about the right to incorporate. My statement was made in the first person as "I can incorporate and produce a movie".

The act of incorporation does make one step outside of the protections of the 1st Amendment to produce a movie. Affirmed 5-4

 

[ConzHateUSA]

The supremes are so corrupt they had to create an issue that didnt exist with CU to get to where they wanted to end up...all 5 of them belong in prison, well two for sure who lied under oath in hearings

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The case was about "government . . .restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions". The movie was in and of itself immaterial. The issue just as easily could have been the production of a political pamphlet that violated federal statute.

exactly

time to retire a few idiots here

 

[OODA_Loop]

Just like if you incorporate you can still produce art, songs, books, posters, dance routines and be protected in your free expression.

There never was a law against producing the film or even showing the film.

Right that part of the law or administration of the law (1st AM protection of Incorporated body producing a political film) was deemed unconstitutional by Citizens United vs FEC who administer the law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Government did not try to prohibit Citizens United right to incorporate and produce a movie. Citizens United wanted to air a film in violation of the law. Citizens United challenged campaign finance law in the courts.

The case was never about the right to incorporate to produce a film.

Didn't claim it was about the right to incorporate. My statement was made in the first person as "I can incorporate and produce a movie".

The act of incorporation does make one step outside of the protections of the 1st Amendment to produce a movie. Affirmed 5-4

airing the movie. even a quick wiki search:

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The case was about "government . . .restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions". The movie was in and of itself immaterial. The issue just as easily could have been the production of a political pamphlet that violated federal statute.

exactly

time to retire a few idiots here

No actually the decision was strictly within the grounds of 1st Amendment protections.

If you have something from the decision demonstrating otherwise I would read and appreciate it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

airing the movie. even a quick wiki search:

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

Is your argument a political film / movie is not a ..... "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions

That was the portion deemed unconstituional.

 

[dblack]

BOY are YOU so on target! YES EVERY DAY ALL Corporations are :
1) killing their consumers!
2) Destroying ALL PROPERTY!

YES these CORPORATIONS are like the BORG!!!
"RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!

EVERY CORPORATION STEALS from EVERYONE ALL the time!

YES we need to destroy CORPORATIONS and life will be 100% better!!!

Let us all return to the time BEFORE corporations and their MASSIVE DESTRUCTION!
Return to when Life expectancy was less then 40 years!
Return to when letters took 20 days to go 100 miles!
Return to when there was NO Rice Crispies.. NO KFC! YES LET's DESTROY them before these evil corporations ORDER their cars to KILL all their drivers!

Isn't that totally STUPID... much like YOUR comment!!!

The problem is that the owners of corporations aren't held fully accountable for what their companies do in the name of earning them a profit. So stockholders feel relatively free to hire 'gunslinger' CEOs who will do whatever is necessary to bring in the dough. They pay them exorbitant salaries to be, essentially, fall guys who will do the dirty work and take the hit if caught. The worst case scenario (from an investor's POV) will be the crooked CEOs getting busted and the company losing some money.

If owners of a privately held company did this, if they hired unscrupulous thugs and told them to do whatever it took to earn a profit, they would be culpable. At the very least, they'd be liable for lawsuits resulting from the actions of their company. They could lose everything they own, not just the money invested in the business. My question is, why should corporate investors be shielded from this kind of responsibility?

Advantages of a corporation

A corporation (from Latin “corpus”, literally “body”) is considered to be a person who is completely separate from its owners. Owners are known as shareholders because they own only a share or part of the organization. Like a person, corporations may own property and assets, take on debt to finance operations, and sell shares to raise money. The corporation enjoys four major advantages that, when combined, make this type of organization attractive for large ventures.

1. Owner liability is limited to the loss of the value of shares held. Owners’ entire wealth is not in jeopardy if the corporation goes bankrupt or ceases operation.

2. When owners die, shares of the corporation can be willed to family members or other entities just like any other asset.

3. Selling ownership of a corporation is simply a matter of selling shares to a buyer willing to pay the price of the shares.

4. The permanent nature of corporations makes capital easier to acquire as lenders do not have to worry about the death of its owners.

Disadvantages

The corporation does have one major disadvantage. Income made by the corporation is taxed twice. The first taxation occurs because the corporation is considered to be a person and, therefore, is taxed accordingly. Then, the income gained through ownership of the corporation is taxed as personal income in the owners’ income tax.

Advantages of a Corporation Over a Partnership or Sole Proprietorship

Class dismissed.

I'm afraid you've missed the point of my question. I'm not asking what advantages incorporation offers companies and investors, or why they would want these perks - that much is obvious. I'm asking why we, as a society, should grant them. Especially in light of the disadvantageous - the lack of accountability, the concentration of power, the increased lifespan of companies that might otherwise fail lacking these perks.

 

[bripat9643]

A Perth crane company has been found guilty of causing the death of a worker by failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace.

please get a life?

So if you roof drains onto your drive way, and the runoff freezes and turns it into a skating rink, you have killed someone if they slip on it and smash their skull open? Should you be tried for murder?

you asked for an example of a corporation killing somebody. I posted an example. What is it you don't like fact or reality?

My analogy makes it clear the corporation didn't kill anybody just as the homeowner hasn't killed the person who slips on his property and smashes his skull. However, in both cases they can be held liable for negligence.

[and you said "No one in this discussion has said a corporation is a person. They have said corporations are people, which is 100% accurate" - which is idiocy on steroids

It takes idiocy on steroids not to understand the simple truth.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

stunning, people who can barely afford macaroni and cheese, taking time out of their day to defend billionaires who are destroying their country

simply stunning

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The case was about "government . . .restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions". The movie was in and of itself immaterial. The issue just as easily could have been the production of a political pamphlet that violated federal statute.

exactly

time to retire a few idiots here

No actually the decision was strictly within the grounds of 1st Amendment protections.

If you have something from the decision demonstrating otherwise I would read and appreciate it.

Citizens United = I can incorporate and produce any movie I want.

I support that like any other 1st Protection.

you fucking moron. the case was not about the right to produce a movie.

gawd, you're a poster child for assisted suicide

 

[Katzndogz]

It's True: Corporations Are People
What else could they be?
Buildings don't hire people.
Buildings don't design cars that run on electricity or discover drug therapies to defeat cancer.

Elizabeth Warren introduced President Obama at a big fundraiser in Boston:
"Mitt Romney tells us, in his own words, he believes corporations are people. No, Mitt, corporations are NOT people," she pronounced. "People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They love and they cry and they dance. They live and they die. Learn the difference." The audience went wild.
Jack Welch and Suzy Welch: It's True—Corporations Are People - WSJ.com

Ms. Warren.. who makes corporate decisions? Computers? Buildings? Oil wells?
Seriously .. what else but "people" make those decisions? NOT corporations!

The difference between people and corporations? People vote, corporations buy politicians. People get sick and die, corporations go on forever (especially if they are big enough 'not to fail'). People are held liable for their misdeeds, corporations are designed with limited liability. People make decisions for their children, corporations make decisions for their stockholders. If a person kills someone, they face criminal prosecution. When corporations kill people, no one ends up on death row.

Corporations "die" all the time. They get sued into bankruptcy and dissolve, they lose their corporate charter. Corporations never commit the kind of malfeasance that kills someone. It's a corporate decision maker and yes, they are prosecuted for it too.

 

[dblack]

Corporations "die" all the time. They get sued into bankruptcy and dissolve, they lose their corporate charter. Corporations never commit the kind of malfeasance that kills someone. It's a corporate decision maker and yes, they are prosecuted for it too.

But the people who profit from their malfeasance are shielded. Don't you see how significant that is? That's why the 'decision makers' are paid so much - because they are willing to take the risks to make their investors the big bucks. And as long as the investors get away scot-free, they'll continue shoveling the money to unscrupulous people who will do their dirty work for them. That's the lack of accountability at the core of the corporate charter, and it's a real problem. We free market advocates need to come to terms with that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

airing the movie. even a quick wiki search:

Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

Is your argument a political film / movie is not a ..... "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions

That was the portion deemed unconstituional.

I see where you are confused. I'll go easy on you, promise. Now assume the position:

The law said "a political film/movie" that mentions a candidate could not be aired as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication within 60 days of a general election.

It had to do with political ads within the 60 day window.

The Supreme Court went much further when striking down the law. It brought in issues and precedent no one asked the Court to. Unlike the Obamacare ruling where the Government asked the Court to rule the shared responsibility payment, a tax.