Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[warhammer651]

On British Corporations: Maybe they learned their lesson after the East India Company?

[Culise]

Are you doing this for some sort of class or something?

Corporations absolutely do give money to politicians every day, it's just through a complicated endrun system.

Are you aware of what PACs (Political Action Committees) are? How about SuperPACs? How about "sponsoring" events, which happen to have political things attached to them? If a corporation wants to give money to a politician, then they pretty much are going to find a way.

Also corporations are only considered "people" when it is in their favor. You can't jail one. You can't force non dischargable debt onto them. They can be effectively immortal or die at will (whichever is more to their favor).

I imagine the courts thought the issue was a non issue except in academic circles where practicality has no place.

One may wonder why this law still exist when current campaign finance law allow corporations to partake in the political process anyway through setting up Super PACs, but there it is. This law, by the way, is called the Tillman Act of 1907, if you are interested.

I'm pretty sure he's aware of Super PACs. :p

At any rate, legally, corporations are people to ensure liability is carried with the corporation, or at least, this was the original intention under common law.  For instance, a corporation cannot legally vote for the President, or run for public office (President Enron?!).  Rather, as a legal person, it is permitted to act as a single individual for legal purposes, which is a big deal in common law, where only "people" could be sued historically.  In other words, by extending personhood to a corporation, one opens it to legal action where limited liability - that is to say, the notion that the owners were not responsible for any more financial liability than they had originally put into the company in the first place (i.e., if they put $5 into buying a share, they can't lose their house to the bank if the corp. goes bankrupt to cover the debts) - would otherwise restrict such legal settlements.  Essentially, legal personhood is itself a loophole designed around some of the aspects of common law that became outdated over the centuries ("Oh, you want to sue them to get your money back?  Well, you can't since they're not a person...so we'll pass a law that makes them a person and let you go ahead.").  As a legal person, it can only have such rights as it is granted and such responsibilities as are required under the legal acts that defined it as a legal person, in contrast to the so-called natural person, who is born to it by virtue of being human (usually).  If this includes a recognition that any significant concentration of wealth tends to skew the political process and thus consequent steps in order to mitigate this, especially in the case of corporations that tend to make it easier to amass such a concentration, then so be it. 

Or something like that.

[Bohandas]

The problem is that corporations are people.

It can't really be put in simpler terms than this. We do not need a legal decision allowing corporations to buy politicians, we need one overturning their status as people.

That's not what we need, its merely the best that we can reasonably expect. What we NEED is something that dissolves ALL of the protections of the corporate system and ultimately leads to the permanent incarceration and/or financial ruin of most major captains of industry.

[Loud Whispers]

On British Corporations: Maybe they learned their lesson after the East India Company?

Private military =/= bad.

[misko27]

I sorta just think Europe had there tim ein the Sun with terrible corrupt corporations, and its the US's turn.

[Korbac]

*NAIVE WARNING*

When I was young, I believed if you established a company. you were it's head for life. The way it actually works is that you are likely to sit as a very high position on the company board and get payments, but in reality the CEO and company board changes hands semi - regularly... I think?

If you establish a company as a sole enterprise, you are its head for life, but it also ceases to exist when you die. If you incorporate your company you risk losing power, but it becomes unattached to your life. This is most promenant in publicly traded companies since anyone can buy your stock and control you with it. Privately traded companies are more stable in who holds the power. Gabe Newell owns most of Valve's stock at all times, for example.

This makes sense, thanks.

I suppose the disadvantage of having a sole company is that nobody is going to invest too heavily in it if it's just going to close when you die?

[10ebbor10]

I sorta just think Europe had there tim ein the Sun with terrible corrupt corporations, and its the US's turn.

The corporations aren't that corrupt; thought the governement often is.

[Neonivek]

To me the issue with corperations is that corperate law hasn't caught up to modern times... not that they exist and not because of the concept of them being a "legal person".

[Mr. Palau]

Corporations have been considered people for quite some time, as Culse demonstrates.

I don't think that we need to explicitly prohibit corporations giving money to politicians, because we allow everyone else to give money to politicians, and they are legally people. We could simply subject them to the same restrictions imposed on all other people, which would mean the corporation could give money, but incredibly small amounts.

[Neonivek]

The issue though Palau is that Backdoor deals with people are serious.

Backdoor deals with a corperation are minor offenses at best.

[Immortal]

The issue is that the government allows corporations to pass bills which give them an unfair advantage. The problem arises when the government does not punish those running the corporation. I am not strictly speaking about the US either. Corporations should be allowed to give money and do whatever they want with their assets long as they harm nothing (environment or society wise). What they should be incapable of is funding politicians who infringe on liberties and give larger corporations the edge or allow unfair laws to be passed.

[Neonivek]

Which I think is where we found the issue.

A person is capable of doing campaign donations at the bottom of their heart.

A Corperation is, however, not.

While you can give a person the benefit of the doubt, you cannot do that for something that has no heart or soul to begin with.

[mainiac]

We could simply subject them to the same restrictions imposed on all other people, which would mean the corporation could give money, but incredibly small amounts.

Cue the Koch brothers starting 1 billion mini-corporations that each give 10 bucks to a politician...

[Bohandas]

The heart of the problem is that corporations are treated as people (or better) under the law, whereas by all rights they should be treated as being lower than people (they should also be lower than animals, plants, possibly also machines for that matter)

[Neonivek]

The heart of the problem is that corporations are treated as people (or better) under the law, whereas by all rights they should be treated as being lower than people (they should also be lower than animals, plants, possibly also machines for that matter)

What does that mean essentially?