Congressman Proposes Amendment to Remove Corporate Personhood

[FreeTraveler]

CONGRESSMAN JIM MCGOVERN INTRODUCES
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BILL TO OVERTURN CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
‘Corporations Are Not People’

‘PEOPLE’S RIGHTS AMENDMENT’
WOULD REPEAL CITIZENS UNITED RULING
AND THE CORPORATE RIGHTS DOCTRINE





WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts introduced today aconstitutional amendment bill to overturn the US Supreme Court’s January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and to make clear that corporations are not people with rights under the US Constitution. The introduction of the bill – the "People’s Rights Amendment" -- marks a major breakthrough in the growing movement across the country to end corporate personhood and restore democracy to the people.

"Corporations are not people," said Congressman McGovern. "They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in war. They are artificial entities which we the people create and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around."

"The Citizens United ruling," McGovern continued, "marks the most extreme extension of a corporate rights doctrine which has eroded our First Amendment and our Constitution. Now is the time for a 28th Amendment that lifts up the promise of American self-government: of, for, and by the people.

Come on, Congressman. Tell the people the rest of the story. Say it the way it should be said.

They are artificial entities which we the people politicians create in return for massive campaign contributions and to provide us with boogiemen to blame all the country's problems on, and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.”

Still, this Amendment is a great blow against crony capitalism and may contain some hope for a more free, more competitive marketplace.

Linky (http://freespeechforpeople.org/McGovern)

[pcosmar]

A good start, though I am not sure it will go anywhere.

Corporate Law needs to be addressed on several points, and corporate influence on Government as well.

[FreeTraveler]

A good start, though I am not sure it will go anywhere.

Corporate Law needs to be addressed on several points, and corporate influence on Government as well.
Yeah, like you said it's nothing but a good start. I hope RP finds out about this STAT and gets on board as cosponsor. I want to see the other corporate cronies on the stage defend NOT getting on board. Maybe Romney will whine about how they're people again and really tank his support. :D

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/AP-1-2010/2606-coverstory.jpg

McCain-Feingold vs. Citizens United


McCain-Feingold and Free Speech (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3049-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech)



04 March 2010 | President Obama and major media outlets, ignoring the First Amendment and its protection of free speech, have chastised the Supreme Court for overturning McCain-Feingold prohibitions on corporations airing political ads.


The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec)



23 January 2010 | The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig.



Ron Paul: "Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/)


Texas Straight Talk
December 22, 2003


In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.

Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.


SOURCE:
http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/

[pcosmar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUbOQMarTbs

[FrankRep]

pcosmar,


Is Ron Paul wrong with his opposition (http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/) to McCain-Feingold (Campaign Reform Act )?

[Pericles]

Much overdue. Corporate charters should do nothing more than provide a means for a company to make and execute contracts, and buy / sell property.

[FrankRep]

Much overdue. Corporate charters should do nothing more than provide a means for a company to make and execute contracts, and buy / sell property.
The bill doesn't abolish corporations. It only restores the McCain-Feingold (Campaign Reform Act ), which Ron Paul opposes (http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/).

[pcosmar]

pcosmar,


Is Ron Paul wrong with his opposition (http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/) to McCain-Feingold (Campaign Reform Act )?

Who said he was wrong? He opposed it for good reason.
Not the question of this thread.

[FrankRep]

Who said he was wrong? He opposed it for good reason.
Not the question of this thread.

Look at the bill itself:



Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts introduced today a constitutional amendment bill to overturn the US Supreme Court’s January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC




- McCain-Feingold and Free Speech (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3049-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech)

- The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec)


Citizens United v. FEC overturned McCain-Feingold.



Understand? Take a step back and review the information, hopefully you'll realize you're being conned by Jim McGovern.

[pcosmar]

The bill doesn't abolish corporations. It only restores the McCain-Feingold (Campaign Reform Act ), which Ron Paul opposes (http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/).

This thread is NOT about McCain-Fiengold.
That was horrible, but not the issue.

A corporation is a legal fiction ,, NOT a Person. It is Property. Property is NOT A PERSON.

[Pericles]

The bill doesn't abolish corporations. It only restores the McCain-Feingold (Campaign Reform Act ), which Ron Paul opposes (http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/).
I'm not saying that the bill is good, I'm saying that laws governing corporations at the state level need a total rework.

[FrankRep]

A good start, though I am not sure it will go anywhere.

Corporate Law needs to be addressed on several points, and corporate influence on Government as well.
Ron Paul will vote NO on this bill.

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul will vote NO on this bill.

Perhaps,,
Perhaps he will assist in rewriting it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/ron-paul-rebukes-romney-corporations-are-not-people/


“Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.”
Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ds7-1Nemrng

[FrankRep]

Perhaps,,
Perhaps he will assist in rewriting it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/ron-paul-rebukes-romney-corporations-are-not-people/

Again: Con. Jim McGovern (D)'s bill only restores McCain-Feingold. Ron Paul opposes McCain-Feingold.

[akforme]

doesn't this stop the middle class from pooling money and speaking out as a group (corporation)? How does that help anyone but the rich who can afford to do it on their own?

[FreeTraveler]

Look at the bill itself:

Understand? Take a step back and review the information, hopefully you'll realize you're being conned by Jim McGovern.

LOL! Read the actual Amendment that's been proposed. What's happened is that clueless McGovern has shot crony capitalism in the head, and he just doesn't realize it yet.

Here's the text of the Amendment. It would do a crapload more than McGovern has a clue about. I don't think he even realizes Unions are Corporations!


Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the la...ws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
That Amendment will do irrepairable damage to the whole structure of crony capitalism. It also takes away the politician's excuse that they can't control the evil corporations.

You may be confusing this with some other legislation that McGovern has proposed. I almost made that mistake when I was searching for more information.

[FrankRep]

doesn't this stop the middle class from pooling money and speaking out as a group (corporation)? How does that help anyone but the rich who can afford to do it on their own?

You have the right idea. Please read the articles below:

(2003) Ron Paul: "Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent
http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2003/12/campaign-finance-reform-muzzles-political-dissent/

McCain-Feingold and Free Speech
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3049-mccain-feingold-and-free-speech

The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec

[pcosmar]

McCain-Fiengold restricted Free speech. That is why Ron opposed it.
The decision to overturn it affirmed Corporate Person-hood,, which Ron Paul opposes.

I hope he will get behind this.

[FrankRep]

McCain-Fiengold restricted Free speech. That is why Ron opposed it.
The decision to overturn it affirmed Corporate Person-hood,, which Ron Paul opposes.

I hope he will get behind this.


What kind of "rights" do Corporations get?

[Number19]

A good start, though I am not sure it will go anywhere.

Corporate Law needs to be addressed on several points, and corporate influence on Government as well.Not much of a chance of this happening, with 45% of our Congressmen being members of the BAR. One of the issues in my campaign is to address this conflict of interest with an amendment prohibiting members of the BAR from serving in the legislative branch of government:


Separation of Power Amendment

At the time of our nation’s founding, there was a widespread and traditional distrust of lawyers – because lawyers were perceived as agents of the Crown who twisted the law to secure convictions. We now find ourselves in a situation not so dissimilar from that earlier time.

The Judicial Branch of our government is limited to a single profession – lawyers – who, since 1878, have become increasingly licensed and controlled by the American Bar Association. The United States now has over 1,000,000 lawyers, the highest percentage in the world; and 45% of our Representatives are members of The Bar.

There is an inherent conflict of interest in this relationship:

First, our legislators are writing laws impacting the income of their membership organization, through litigation and council. Lawsuits are out of control. All aspects of our lives, from personal to commercial, require contractual agreements.
Second, we need legal reform in the area of law – and nothing can pass Congress without ABA approval and support.

This imbalance of power needs correction; and as your Congressman, I will work to reestablish the Separation of Power and will work to introduce a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a licensed member of The Bar from serving in the Legislative Branch of government.

http://harper4congress.com/issues/

[FreeTraveler]

What kind of "rights" do Corporations get?
None. Corporations have no rights. What they get is government-forced privilege of claiming they are on an equal footing with people, rather than completely fictional legal constructs. That's how they argue they have "free speech" which gives them the right to lobby congress, for one thing. The Amendment as proposed makes it plain that anything they do is purely because their government lackeys have written legislation to allow them to do so. No longer will they be allowed to hide behind the natural rights that individuals possess by right of birth. It's not the final solution when it comes to corporations, but what it does do is force the political machine to assume full responsibility for the creatures they've created.

The 545 Dr. Frankensteins in DC, and their counterparts on the state level, have long claimed that they just can't control the corporations. This Amendment takes that argument forever off the table.

They should rename it the "We Brought You Into the World, and We Can Take You Out" Amendment. :)

[pcosmar]

What kind of "rights" do Corporations get?

A "corporation" should have NO rights.
Declaring them as a person gives them rights.

As a "for instance" a corporation can own arms (Machine guns) where a natural person can not.
It is one of the "loop holes" some use for ownership.

Today Corporations seem to have more "rights" than individuals.

[FrankRep]

What kind of "rights" do Corporations get?

None. Corporations have no rights.

A "corporation" should have NO rights.

Let me re-phrase, what are Corporations getting explicitly that you don't want them to get? Please give examples.

[pcosmar]

Let me re-phrase, what are Corporations getting explicitly that you don't want them to get? Please give examples.

Direct access and influence with "lawmakers". This is a direct conflict of interest.
Protection from prosecution for Bribery. A corporation can not be arrested or jailed.
Theft from the people of the US. (see Bailouts)
Limits on Liability.
The revolving door between Government "service" and corporate jobs, is ethically and morally wrong. (regardless of any "Laws")

[John F Kennedy III]

It all depends on the wording of the amendment. I don't want no more free tradeless free trade.

[Brett85]

What an aweful bill. This is just another assault on free speech.

[Brett85]

Direct access and influence with "lawmakers". This is a direct conflict of interest.
Protection from prosecution for Bribery. A corporation can not be arrested or jailed.
Theft from the people of the US. (see Bailouts)
Limits on Liability.
The revolving door between Government "service" and corporate jobs, is ethically and morally wrong. (regardless of any "Laws")

Corporations don't have any more "influence" over lawmakers than individuals do. Corporations have the right to lobby members of Congress, as do individuals through email and phone calls. The only difference is that individuals don't lobby face to face.

[pcosmar]

Corporations don't have any more "influence" over lawmakers than individuals do. Corporations have the right to lobby members of Congress, as do individuals through email and phone calls. The only difference is that individuals don't lobby face to face.

Most individuals are not able to provide multi-million dollar bribes either. Corporate lobbyists do.

[Sentient Void]

Props to FrankRep and Traditional Conservative for being voices of reason in this thread.

The problem is not 'corporations' or the structure of corporations, or 'corporate personhood'. These thigns are perfectly fine, in and of themselves - and would not only exist in a purely free and capitalist society - but would be needed and highly beneficial.

I suggest many of you read 'In Defense of the Corporation' by Robert Hessen (libertarian). I used to think much the same way as many of you here - that a corporation is merely a 'creature of the State' that benefits from 'State protections' such as 'limited liability' and 'corporate personhood'. After reading this, I was convinced otherwise.

At the very least, read the entirety of Chapter 2 'Are Corporations Creatures of the State' - and you'll find that many of these beliefs are based unfortunately on ignorance of how the structure of a corporation functions, what corporate personhood actually *is* and why it's needed, and so on. Ultimately, denying such rights is denying the rights of individuals to their right of speech and their right to contract and associate voluntarily.

Chapter 2: 'Are Corporations Creatures of the State'
http://books.google.com/books?id=P8mMyuYtwpIC&lpg=PP4&ots=OGlUUpZb4q&dq=robert%20hessen%20in%20defense%20of%20the%20cor poration&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't like Romney, his policies, nor do I trust him, but here - he is absolutely correct.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c

[Democrat4Paul]

it stuns me how some people in this thread defend corporations the way they do. tell me, who are the ones being "conned," those of us who want reasonable reform of regulations concerning how corporations operate behind closed doors at the detriment of the liberty of the American people, or those who would like them to run rampant over us because....we the people owe them something? or "we" are the shareholders so we should have an invested interest?

i am not a shareholder. i do not owe anyone or anything my life, and will defend the rights of the common man against the so called "rights" of a greedy corporation any day of the week

i have read corporate America is sitting on a trillion dollars of profit and is doing quite well, yet they claim the coffers are dry so can't create any new jobs. oh really?

i, you, we the people owe corporations nothing. money made on the backs of the common man, then turn their backs on the same men and women which helped build the wealth. i heard their was a "crisis of confidence" for hiring and starting new business because of Obama. well, there is the backbone of corporate America for you. self serving cowardice, i say

am i grateful to corporate America for MY job? i work hard, they pay me. its even steven at the end of the day and i give them no more then that

[Anti Federalist]

I find the way "fault lines" develop fascinating.

I'm with Ron Paul.

A corporation is not a person.

A person, as a sole proprietor, cannot limit their liability exposure.


Props to FrankRep and Traditional Conservative for being voices of reason in this thread.

The problem is not 'corporations' or the structure of corporations, or 'corporate personhood'. These thigns are perfectly fine, in and of themselves - and would not only exist in a purely free and capitalist society - but would be needed and highly beneficial.

I suggest many of you read 'In Defense of the Corporation' by Robert Hessen (libertarian). I used to think much the same way as many of you here - that a corporation is merely a 'creature of the State' that benefits from 'State protections' such as 'limited liability' and 'corporate personhood'. After reading this, I was convinced otherwise.

At the very least, read the entirety of Chapter 2 'Are Corporations Creatures of the State' - and you'll find that many of these beliefs are based unfortunately on ignorance of how the structure of a corporation functions, what corporate personhood actually *is* and why it's needed, and so on. Ultimately, denying such rights is denying the rights of individuals to their right of speech and their right to contract and associate voluntarily.

Chapter 2: 'Are Corporations Creatures of the State'
http://books.google.com/books?id=P8mMyuYtwpIC&lpg=PP4&ots=OGlUUpZb4q&dq=robert%20hessen%20in%20defense%20of%20the%20cor poration&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't like Romney, his policies, nor do I trust him, but here - he is absolutely correct.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c

[Brett85]

or those who would like them to run rampant over us because....we the people owe them something?

How can a corporation "run rampant" over you? Nobody is forced to buy a product from any corporation, and nobody is forced to work for any corporation. Those are choices that individuals have. The only entity that has the power to force us to do certain things is the government.

[Brett85]

Most individuals are not able to provide multi-million dollar bribes either. Corporate lobbyists do.

Bribery is illegal. Any corporate lobbyist who gets caught bribing a member of Congress will get thrown in jail.

[matt0611]

How is it ok to violate a group of people's free speech?

I agree with Citizens United deicision. It was the right decision.

[Anti Federalist]

How can a corporation "run rampant" over you? Nobody is forced to buy a product from any corporation, and nobody is forced to work for any corporation. Those are choices that individuals have. The only entity that has the power to force us to do certain things is the government.

Every employer in my line of work is moving toward a DNA/hair follicle/drug test database.

There is no law that says they have to do.

They're just doing it.

You will not work if you do not submit, there will be no "going to work elsewhere".

This is coming to all segments of corporate America.

So yeah, I suppose, you could say "you're free to starve and die" as being a choice, like they tell some of our very own RPF members when it comes to MM usage.

But it's not valid one.

Just because I sell blocks of my time and skill to somebody does not mean they own me outside of that.

[Tod]

Much overdue. Corporate charters should do nothing more than provide a means for a company to make and execute contracts, and buy / sell property.

What do you think about personal liability issues? Should the president of a company be personally liable for corporate decisions that he/she makes?

[Anti Federalist]

What do you think about personal liability issues? Should the president of a company be personally liable for corporate decisions that he/she makes?

I am.

I see no reason why the CEO should not be.

[pcosmar]

Bribery is illegal. Any corporate lobbyist who gets caught bribing a member of Congress will get thrown in jail.

Bullshit, it happens every day and very few are ever prosecuted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe1d32I_wUY

[Tod]

I would really like to see Ron Paul address how he would get corporatism under control. The only solution I've heard so far is, "eliminate government", but I think it will take more than that.

[FreeTraveler]

Ima gonna repost the actual text of the Amendment, for people who are arguing everything but what the Amendment actually says. Lookee here. Read. Learn.

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
That's it. All of it. From the beginning to the end. It removes the fiction of "personhood" and once again makes corporations transparently the creation of the Dr. Frankensteins in DC and their counterparts in state houses across the country.

You don't like what corporations do, change the law. No more legislators hiding behind the "but they have the same rights as people" crap. If a corporation screws somebody, the politicians who created the legislation that allowed it have no excuse to hide behind, no "we're powerless before the rights of the people" leg to stand on.

I think it should be retitled the "We Brought You Into the World, And We Can Take You Out!" Amendment.

[pcosmar]

How can a corporation "run rampant" over you? Nobody is forced to buy a product from any corporation, and nobody is forced to work for any corporation. Those are choices that individuals have. The only entity that has the power to force us to do certain things is the government.

Car Insurance.
I remember a time when it was optional. The insurance companies pushed to make it mandatory,, then doubled the fees when it was.
I watched this happen in 2 states.

Drugs and Drug laws are another example.

There are examples in just about every area of life anymore.

[Tod]

I was hearing the other day how some politicians are involved in forming a company (seed money), support grants for the company, the company then goes public, stock shoots up, the politicians cash out, and the company falls flat.

Kinda like this stuff (could just as easily be Bush and his pals as Obama and his pals)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/more-crony-socialism-obama-gives-737-million-to-pelosis-brother-in-laws-solar-firm/

[Tod]

Someone forwarded this link to me:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf

[FreeTraveler]

Someone forwarded this link to me:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf
That article does a good job of summarizing the abuse of the fourteenth amendment that this new amendment is intended to rectify.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah I hope Ron Paul speaks about this.

[Tod]

Here is someone from Florida's version...


Rep. Deutch Unveils OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment
Bans Corporate Money in Elections and Declares Corporations Are Not People










Washington, DC, Nov 18 - Today, Rep. Ted Deutch (FL-19), a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment. The OCCUPIED Amendment both overturns the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that wrongly awarded the Constitutionally-protected free speech rights of people to corporations and totally bans corporate money from America’s electoral process.




http://deutch.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269672

[Brett85]

Every employer in my line of work is moving toward a DNA/hair follicle/drug test database.

There is no law that says they have to do.

They're just doing it.

You will not work if you do not submit, there will be no "going to work elsewhere".

This is coming to all segments of corporate America.

So yeah, I suppose, you could say "you're free to starve and die" as being a choice, like they tell some of our very own RPF members when it comes to MM usage.

But it's not valid one.

Just because I sell blocks of my time and skill to somebody does not mean they own me outside of that.

So what could be done to stop that? Pass a bunch of new government regulations on corporations?

[Brett85]

Bullshit, it happens every day and very few are ever prosecuted.

Then they need to enforce the law better, not abolish corporations.

[Brett85]

Car Insurance.
I remember a time when it was optional. The insurance companies pushed to make it mandatory,, then doubled the fees when it was.
I watched this happen in 2 states.

Drugs and Drug laws are another example.

There are examples in just about every area of life anymore.

Then the government should be criticized for forcing people to buy car insurance. The insurance companies themselves don't force us to buy car insurance. It's simply another bad government policy.

[Tod]

So what could be done to stop that? Pass a bunch of new government regulations on corporations?

What is your solution?

[Brett85]

What is your solution?

I don't think you can stop a private business from having policies that people feel may infringe on their personal privacy. People can simply leave that business and work for a company that treats them well. The companies that treat their employees well will ultimately get more people to work for them and will thrive. The companies that treat their employees poorly will get a bad reputation and ultimately fail. But the solution should never be more government intervention.

[Tod]

More on the 14th Amendment, including historical discussion:

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

[Tod]

Car Insurance.
I remember a time when it was optional. The insurance companies pushed to make it mandatory,, then doubled the fees when it was.
I watched this happen in 2 states.

Drugs and Drug laws are another example.

There are examples in just about every area of life anymore.

I was looking for references to support your claim that insurance companies lobbied for mandatory insurance, to no avail. It is always nice to be able to give examples of things like this and back up the examples with records verifying that it happened.

Do you have anything to support your statement?

Thanks!

[Anti Federalist]

So what could be done to stop that? Pass a bunch of new government regulations on corporations?

LoL - even worse from the "traditional conservative" pov.

Unions.

It was this "company store" mentality that started them, it will be the same sort of abuses that revive them.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think you can stop a private business from having policies that people feel may infringe on their personal privacy. People can simply leave that business and work for a company that treats them well. The companies that treat their employees well will ultimately get more people to work for them and will thrive. The companies that treat their employees poorly will get a bad reputation and ultimately fail. But the solution should never be more government intervention.

Again, in the case I am describing, there will be no other place to work, there will be no choice, everybody will be doing it.

Comply or Die is the phrase in the industry.

Where does it end?

Does your employer have a right to mount surveillance cameras all over your house, to make sure you are in compliance?

That would include your bedroom, to make sure you are not violating company health care policies by not having safe sex.

And good for the few liberty minded business owners that would refuse to do this...at first anyway.

But at some point in time they would be forced into compliance, they wouldn't be able to get insurance or bonding unless they did.

[Brett85]

LoL - even worse from the "traditional conservative" pov.

Unions.

It was this "company store" mentality that started them, it will be the same sort of abuses that revive them.

I don't necessarily have a problem with unions in the private sector. Employees have the 1st amendment right to collectively bargain. That's a better option that having the federal government issue a bunch of new regulations.

[low preference guy]

Freedom of contract is important. Ron Paul often says the govt. should protect private property and enforce contracts. That's basic stuff. What you can do and what your employer can do depends on the contract between the parties. If part of your contract says that your employer should pretend he is a monkey every Friday to make the work environment a nice place, you have a right to expect he'll do that.

[Brett85]

Does your employer have a right to mount surveillance cameras all over your house, to make sure you are in compliance?

That would include your bedroom, to make sure you are not violating company health care policies by not having safe sex.

In a situation like that, you would certainly have the right to sue your employer for invading your privacy and stalking you. Actually, that would even be something they would face jail time for.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't necessarily have a problem with unions in the private sector. Employees have the 1st amendment right to collectively bargain. That's a better option that having the federal government issue a bunch of new regulations.


In a situation like that, you would certainly have the right to sue your employer for invading your privacy and stalking you. Actually, that would even be something they would face jail time for.

Well, good, we agree that would be an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

I've had folks tell me that was well within the employer's right to do.

[low preference guy]

I've had folks tell me that was well within the employer's right to do.

If you agreed to it in a contract your employer does have a right to do that. Those people who appear in reality TV shows agree to relinquish their privacy through a contract. It's perfectly fine; they have a right to be reality TV stars and the government shouldn't interfere with that. Now, about having cameras ensuring you have safe sex, that's a ridiculous scenario. I'm not aware of any employer demanding that. But people are free to engage in such contracts if they want to. That's part of freedom of contract.

It's all about private property and freedom of contract. They solve most problems. This is classic liberalism 101.

[pcosmar]

Do you have anything to support your statement?

Thanks!

Being that it happened before the internet was in existence I have no links handy.
Though on my first car, I signed a Financial Responsibility Form.

[Tod]

In a situation like that, you would certainly have the right to sue your employer for invading your privacy and stalking you. Actually, that would even be something they would face jail time for.

A LOT of things employers do now weren't done not so long ago. In order to get around your concerns, as with everything else, the employer requires that you sign on the dotted line or else you are out of a job.

How bad does it have to get before employees band together and say enough is enough?

[pcosmar]

“Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.”
Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ds7-1Nemrng

[low preference guy]

A LOT of things employers do now weren't done not so long ago. In order to get around your concerns, as with everything else, the employer requires that you sign on the dotted line or else you are out of a job.

How bad does it have to get before employees band together and say enough is enough?

A good start would be to remove the government from interfering in contracts and the relationship between employer and employee. If you don't have freedom of contract, you can't do what you're proposing.

[Anti Federalist]

How bad does it have to get before employees band together and say enough is enough?

Based on the shit people are willing to eat from government, I'd say, pretty goddamned bad.

[pcosmar]

So what could be done to stop that? Pass a bunch of new government regulations on corporations?
Not necessarily.
just remove the Government regulations that the Corporations lobbied for.
Remove the Government regulations that give them an unfair advantage,, In both business and lobbying.

[low preference guy]

Not necessarily.
just remove the Government regulations that the Corporations lobbied for.

It' even better to remove also the regulations they didn't lobby for.

[pcosmar]

It' even better to remove also the regulations they didn't lobby for.

This is true, And remove the Banking Cartel that feeds and protects them as well.
Remove all the Phony Money and issue new currency, based on real commodity rather than debt.

The Federal Reserve and associated partners are the real cause of economic and corruption problems.

http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fedsquid.jpg

[Pauls' Revere]

The Supreme Court removed limits to campaign donations from corporations and Labor. Tell me how does an everyday person compete with this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute

In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to develop a "forceful response."

"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.


I have no idea what Obama has done to address this.

[Brett85]

The Supreme Court removed limits to campaign donations from corporations and Labor. Tell me how does an everyday person compete with this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute

In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to develop a "forceful response."

"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.


I have no idea what Obama has done to address this.

I don't believe that the Supreme Court decision allowed corporations to donate millions of dollars to political candidates. The Citizens United decision simply made it clear that corporations have the right to spend as much money as they want on advertisements for any candidate they support. Any other decision would've been a clear violation of the 1st amendment. The government can't prevent a private company from advertising on television. Corporations still can't donate over $2,500 directly to any political candidate.

Also, the McCain-Feingold law actually made it easier for unions to funnel in millions of dollars to political candidates.

[Brett85]

How bad does it have to get before employees band together and say enough is enough?

The last time I checked, they already had that right. It's called freedom of association.

[FrankRep]

Here is someone from Florida's version...

Rep. Deutch Unveils OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment
Bans Corporate Money in Elections and Declares Corporations Are Not People

http://deutch.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=269672


RIP. Freedom of Speech. Oh look, he's a Democrat.

[Brett85]

RIP. Freedom of Speech. Oh look, he's a Democrat.

Yes, it seems strange that so many people here constantly bash corporations. A corporation is a private entity that cannot force you to do anything you don't want to do. A corporation can't force you to buy their product, and they can't force you to work for them. The government is the problem, because that's the one entity that actually uses force to control our lives. It's strange that so many here use Daily Kos type talking points in regards to corporations. I would think that it would be nearly unanimous among libertarians that private entities are a good thing.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, it seems strange that so many people here constantly bash corporations. A corporation is a private entity that cannot force you to do anything you don't want to do. A corporation can't force you to buy their product, and they can't force you to work for them.

That is historically inaccurate.

Monopolies, "Fordism", planned corporate communities, company scrip at the company store, Kelo v. New London...the list is long of corporate entities doing exactly that.

I am convinced that most all of human misery in our history, (in spite of the good, that's the damnable part of it) can be traced back to three things:

Big Government
Big Business
Big Religion

Smaller, independent and local is better.

[FrankRep]

That is historically inaccurate.

Monopolies, "Fordism", planned corporate communities, company scrip at the company store, Kelo v. New London...the list is long of corporate entities doing exactly that.

I am convinced that most all of human misery in our history, (in spite of the good, that's the damnable part of it) can be traced back to three things:

Big Government
Big Business
Big Religion

Smaller, independent and local is better.



Big Government enables Monopolies to exist, remember? Blame Big Government, not Corporations.

[Tod]

The last time I checked, they already had that right. It's called freedom of association.

I didn't say they didn't, I asked how bad do things have to get before they bother.

[Brett85]

That is historically inaccurate.

Monopolies, "Fordism", planned corporate communities, company scrip at the company store, Kelo v. New London...the list is long of corporate entities doing exactly that.

I am convinced that most all of human misery in our history, (in spite of the good, that's the damnable part of it) can be traced back to three things:

Big Government
Big Business
Big Religion

Smaller, independent and local is better.

You can blame the Supreme Court for the Kelo v. New London decision. Also, in a totally free society with no government, you would still have big business. So the problem is that the only way to do away with "big business" is to dramatically expand the size and power of government. It always worries me when people bash "big business," because the only alternative is to expand the size and power of government.

[pcosmar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/corporate-citizenship-corporate-personhood-paris-commune_n_1005244.html


The settlement ended the Supreme Court case and denied Field one chance to enshrine personhood into law, but he was soon given another. In 1886, Santa Clara County sued Southern Pacific Railroad in a similar case, and the company again asserted its personhood. In fact, whether Southern Pacific was a citizen was irrelevant to the particular dispute, which was decided on technical issues of tax law that applied equally to a business or a person. But the Court reporter, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, who was himself financially intertwined with the railroads, wrote the following in his summary of the decision: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person equal protection of the laws."

Nothing like that was contained in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. itself, so where did Davis get such language? The most likely answer lies with Field, who made a habit of micromanaging Davis' summaries. And Davis himself had plenty of reason to play along: In an earlier case that came before the Court, Davis had been accused of acting as an attorney and trustee of a railroad company, only to wind up with much of that company's assets in his own hands.

As merely part of a reporter's summary, Davis' statement of corporate personhood carried no legal weight. But in a 1888 decision, Field enshrined the error. Citing the Santa Clara case, he wrote, completely out of the blue and not in reaction to any facts in the new case, that a "private corporation is included under the designation of 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section I." That a corporation was a person had -- presto -- become settled law.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no8zxGPyapU

[Anti Federalist]

You can blame the Supreme Court for the Kelo v. New London decision. Also, in a totally free society with no government, you would still have big business. So the problem is that the only way to do away with "big business" is to dramatically expand the size and power of government. It always worries me when people bash "big business," because the only alternative is to expand the size and power of government.

I could blame SCOTUS, but the fact remains that the only reason there was a case in the first place was NLRDC and private developers looking to force people off their land in order to enhance their own bottom line.

I don't want to expand government any more than you do.

I do want it to follow its prime directive and protect the rights of individuals.

Rights that can be violated by both government and "big business"

[jkr]

How can a corporation "run rampant" over you? Nobody is forced to buy a product from any corporation, and nobody is forced to work for any corporation. Those are choices that individuals have. The only entity that has the power to force us to do certain things is the government.

monsanto

[FrankRep]

I could blame SCOTUS, but the fact remains that the only reason there was a case in the first place was NLRDC and private developers looking to force people off their land in order to enhance their own bottom line.

Anti Federalist, are you giving us a lesson of the evils and greed of Capitalism?

[pcosmar]

Anti Federalist, are you giving us a lesson of the evils and greed of Capitalism?

Frank,, Are you defending Corruption and Graft? Or just defending Crony Corporatism?

[angelatc]

Come on, Congressman. Tell the people the rest of the story. Say it the way it should be said.

They are artificial entities which we the people politicians create in return for massive campaign contributions and to provide us with boogiemen to blame all the country's problems on, and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.”

Still, this Amendment is a great blow against crony capitalism and may contain some hope for a more free, more competitive marketplace.

Linky (http://freespeechforpeople.org/McGovern)

Bullshit. All 9 justices agreed that corporations are groups of people who have the same First Amendment rights to band together and speak as any other group of people. Since when do we support letting government give us rights, and then only to special groups?

[angelatc]

monsanto

This place has officially gone insane.

If you ran a business, and the government asked you to come write the laws that would pertain to your industry, you'd have to be mentally retarded not to do just that. The solution isn't nationalizing the corporations, which is where this is headed.

[low preference guy]

If you ran a business, and the government asked you to come write the laws that would pertain to your industry, you'd have to be mentally retarded not to do just that.

If someone tells you stealing is ok, yo have to be mentally retarded to not steal? WTF? :confused:

[pcosmar]

Bullshit. All 9 justices agreed that corporations are groups of people who have the same First Amendment rights to band together and speak as any other group of people. Since when do we support letting government give us rights, and then only to special groups?

They have rights as individual people, and this proposed amendment does not remove that.
The corporation has no rights as a person. (Regardless of what the railroads got passed in the 1800s)
Even Ron Paul has said this directly.

[low preference guy]

They have rights as individual people, and this proposed amendment does not remove that.

They propose restrictions on donations to political campaigns. That's a restriction on individual rights.

[AuH20]

This is a tough question. As our society became more and more over-litigated, the trend towards corporate personhood was unavoidable. So it really is a double-edged sword when you look at the situation we're mired in.

[pcosmar]

They propose restrictions on donations to political campaigns. That's a restriction on individual rights.

Where?
I just read it again and see no restriction on individual donations.
http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

[low preference guy]

Where?
I just read it again and see no restriction on individual donations.
http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf

Individuals own corporations. If one wants to transfer their wealth stored in the corporation to a campaign, that's their right. And that is what they're trying to eliminate.

[pcosmar]

Individuals own corporations. If they want to transfer their wealth stored in the corporation to a campaign, that's their right. And that is what's being restricted.

The individual can make a donation, same as any other individual.

It only says that a corporation IS NOT A PERSON.

[low preference guy]

The individual can make a donation, same as any other individual.

It only says that a corporation IS NOT A PERSON.

It says


‘PEOPLE’S RIGHTS AMENDMENT’
WOULD REPEAL CITIZENS UNITED RULING
AND THE CORPORATE RIGHTS DOCTRINE

Read the part in bold. That would restrict individuals from transferring their wealth stored in a corporation to a campaign. That's a violation of their right to use their property as they see fit.

[pcosmar]

It says



Read the part in bold. That would restrict individuals from transferring their wealth stored in a corporation to a campaign. That's a violation of their right to use their property as they see fit.

It does not say that anywhere on that I have read.
I just read through the PDF
That ,, Those words do not appear anywhere on it. perhaps that is from some commentary, but not the proposed Amendment.


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify
the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited
liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws
of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States
to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or
other corporate entities established by the laws of any
state, the United States, or any foreign state.
1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled
3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol-
4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con-
5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2 States:
3 ‘‘ARTICLE—
4 ‘‘SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish
5 this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Con-
6 stitution to be the rights of natural persons.
7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as
8 used in this Constitution do not include corporations, lim-
9 ited liability companies or other corporate entities estab-
10 lished by the laws of any State, the United States, or any
11 foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to
12 such regulation as the people, through their elected State
13 and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are oth-
14 erwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the
15 States under this Constitution.
16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing contained herein shall be con-
17 strued to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech,
18 freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of
19 association and all such other rights of the people, which
20 rights are inalienable.’’.

Copied from the PDF

[Anti Federalist]

Anti Federalist, are you giving us a lesson of the evils and greed of Capitalism?

Nope, simply pointing out, as I usually do, that "big business" can tyrannize you just as quickly as "big government" can.

And it may or may not need the power of the state behind it to do so.

You're not really going to try and defend the Kelo decision, are you?

[Athan]

Come on, Congressman. Tell the people the rest of the story. Say it the way it should be said.

They are artificial entities which we the people politicians create in return for massive campaign contributions and to provide us with boogiemen to blame all the country's problems on, and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.”

Still, this Amendment is a great blow against crony capitalism and may contain some hope for a more free, more competitive marketplace.

Linky (http://freespeechforpeople.org/McGovern)

This is something we can back. The end of personhood status for corporations. They are not people. Even kids get this fact.

[low preference guy]

This is something we can back. The end of personhood status for corporations. They are not people. Even kids get this fact.

But in practice things won't be very different because individuals own the corporation and whatever use they want to give corporations, that use is allowed, and it follows from their right to use their property as they see fit.

[Rothbardian Girl]

How can a corporation "run rampant" over you? Nobody is forced to buy a product from any corporation, and nobody is forced to work for any corporation. Those are choices that individuals have. The only entity that has the power to force us to do certain things is the government.
This is pretty circular. When corporations are propped up by the state, barriers to competition arise, which means that an employee of a corporation has little choice in alternate sources of employment if he decides to quit. It is true that some people manage to become self-employed, but these numbers are pretty small in comparison to the entire employed population. The nature of corporations is that they limit economic choice, so I'm not sure how this arrangement or current system is truly voluntary.

[Paul Fan]

Corporate managers don't own the corporations. But on a practical level they control what donations are made. The owners might disagree, but they have no effective way to stop it. (Just as they have no way to stop the managers taking super-huge salaries.) I suspect that corporate donations are often not in the best interests of the owners. Even if the value of your stock increases slightly due to regulations that help the corporation you partly own, unless you own a huge amount the diminished quality of life overall due to too many regulations makes you worse off.

[Democrat4Paul]

How can a corporation "run rampant" over you? Nobody is forced to buy a product from any corporation, and nobody is forced to work for any corporation. Those are choices that individuals have. The only entity that has the power to force us to do certain things is the government.
well its like anti federalist said. if i can evoke another post

but also, this. i saw one CEO of one of the nations LARGEST corporations say he and his fellows and companies are earning HUGE profits but cannot hire or open or grow business because of a....and i quote, "crisis of confidence."

what exactly does that mean? what if i got up everyday and lived like i was having a crisis of confidence? i tell you, if i was a fat cat with disposable income up the ying yang and my country was in trouble economically i would not be thinking how much more money i could make on WS or how to "maximize" profits. i would open businesses and employ people, period. thats patriotic. thats telling the gov to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. instead they are acting like they are indeed controlled by government

and lets not forget taxes have not gone UP. people keep screaming about higher taxes on corps and the wealthiest. however they haven't gone up. so they start to scream they need to be even LOWER or they can't hire or grow business. despite record profits

sure, i call that running rampant over peoples lives that are told to "get a job not welfare!" and then hold back jobs causing them to need the welfare. and then try to take that, too.

thats just a trick tbh

Governor of OK was recently asked despite American corporations making 1 trillion $'s in PROFIT recently why isn't the private sector hiring and growing business and opening more. answer?

"no one has any money to spend so how can we?"

what?! i have money to spend. and where did the 1 trillion in profits come from, the air? no, it came from me and you who are ordered to "buy,buy,buy" to keep the economy strong. so thats what we do. do we get what we pay for? sure. but the money paid needs to go BACK into the economy, as you well know. otherwise too many people reap the benefits while those who make it all go get less and less

i call that running rampant

lastly when the crap hits the fan WS gets so cozy with the gov. funny, when the whole debt "crisis" came about those same WS folks who deride big gov were panicked, giving interviews saying "we need them to work this out. the gov can't shutdown. it would wreck the economy. the federal government is the biggest business in the country"

and it is. it doesn't make anything, right? nope. it buys things. goods and services from the private sector. and we wouldn't want that to stop, right?

WS will be all well and fine under Paul, but until then i am very leery. which is why i have saved, bought bonds, and have some gold. no WS for me. this way, i am truly free and beholden to nothing and no one. which is good, because its become increasingly clear that in gov and the private sector one hand washes the other, both "sides" love the status quo, and each side (dem / repub) just nitpick for any small advantage they can get. but both parties are in bed together, just in different beds. like Lucy and Ricky

"wink and a smile." you gotta love it as any and all stab you in the back


EDIT: oh, and where do investors run when the crap hits the fan? the U.S. Treasury, of course. buying up bonds like crazy, contributing to the very thing many WS'ers claim to disdain. pfft....

[pcosmar]

But in practice things won't be very different because individuals own the corporation and whatever use they want to give corporations, that use is allowed, and it follows from their right to use their property as they see fit.

How much can you as an individual donate to a campaign?
This does not change that. Individuals can still donate,, up to the legal limit. any individual person can do that.
This only prevents non-human (corporations) entities from donating.
The individuals within them can still donate, up to the legal limit.

Level playing field.

[FrankRep]

This only prevents non-human (corporations) entities from donating.
This sounds anti-Libertarian and anti-Freedom to me. Prevent businesses from donating money? Seriously?

Karl Marx would approve.

[Anti Federalist]

This sounds anti-Libertarian and anti-Freedom to me. Prevent businesses from donating money? Seriously?

Karl Marx would approve.

As Pete already noted, nobody is restricted.

Everybody from the CEO to the janitor can donate all they want, up to the legal limit for the official campaign and as much as they please for PACs, private ads or what have you.

[FrankRep]

As Pete already noted, nobody is restricted.

Everybody from the CEO to the janitor can donate all they want, up to the legal limit for the official campaign and as much as they please for PACs, private ads or what have you.

Businesses are prevented from donating money? That is silly. Big Government will be needed to enforce that.

[Anti Federalist]

Businesses are prevented from donating money? That is silly. Big Government will be needed to enforce that.

Take a look at FEC rules.

Big government is already here.

But again, a "business" is not a person. The owner or CEO is, and has every right to donate and participate as much as they want.

[pcosmar]

Businesses are prevented from donating money? That is silly. Big Government will be needed to enforce that.

Big Government created that,
Honest Government can remove it.

[FrankRep]

Take a look at FEC rules.

Big government is already here.

But again, a "business" is not a person. The owner or CEO is, and has every right to donate and participate as much as they want.

In the spirit of Capitalism, I say that a business has the freedom to donate money.

[FrankRep]

Big Government created that,
Honest Government can remove it.
"Honest Government," what is that?

[low preference guy]

This only prevents non-human (corporations) entities from donating.

That's a violation of the rights of the individuals who own the corporation. And didn't you say that this amendment DOES NOT restrict donations from corporations? I could swear you said it just a few posts above.


Level playing field.

How does it level the playing field?

[pcosmar]

"Honest Government," what is that?

I have an idea,, but have honestly never seen it.

[pcosmar]

That's a violation of the rights of the individuals who own the corporation. And didn't you say that this amendment DOES NOT restrict donations from corporations? I could swear you said it just a few posts above.



How does it level the playing field?
Are you dense?
Is it a reading comprehension problem?

Or can any Non-Human entities Donate Money to Campaigns?

Like my forest or my dogs? How about a foreign entity?,, China for example.

[low preference guy]

Are you dense?

you are dense. it's the individual doing the donation because he owns the corporation.

Also, didn't you say just a few posts above that the amendment DOES NOT repeal the Citizens United decision? Are you dense? Do you have a reading comprehension problem... to understand your own posts?

[low preference guy]

How about a foreign entity?,, China for example.

That's for another discussion, but money in corporations owned 100% by Americans should be allowed to move without any restriction.

[pcosmar]

you are dense. it's the individual doing the donation because he owns the corporation.

Also, didn't you say just a few posts above that the amendment DOES NOT repeal the Citizens United decision? Are you dense? Do you have a reading comprehension problem... to understand your own posts?

The individual can still make a donation, the same as any individual that does not own a corporation.

The Corporation can not make a contribution because it is NOT A PERSON.

[low preference guy]

The Corporation can not make a contribution because it is NOT A PERSON.

And the corporation doesn't make the donation. It's the individual who owns the corporation that allows his wealth stored in the corporation that he owns to be sent to some campaign.

[pcosmar]

Obviously they are NOT (people)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-xFexgH76g

[low preference guy]

Obviously they are NOT (people)

Straw man. I'm not arguing against that. Corporations obviously are not people.

[pcosmar]

And the corporation doesn't make the donation. It's the individual who owns the corporation that allows his wealth stored in the corporation that he owns to be sent to some campaign.

And the individual can still make a donation regardless of where his wealth is from.
He can make the same donation (allowed by law) as any other individual.

[pcosmar]

Straw man. I'm not arguing against that. Corporations obviously are not people.

WTF are you arguing about then.

[low preference guy]

And the individual can still make a donation regardless of where his wealth is from.

Even if part of his wealth is in the form of savings of a corporation that he owns.

[low preference guy]

WTF are you arguing about then.

lol. read again. you have some reading comprehension problems.

[pcosmar]

lol. read again. apparently you have some reading comprehension problems.

Congressman Proposes Amendment to Remove Corporate Personhood

Nope,, I understand that just fine.

[DamianTV]

Why do you think your name is IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ON YOUR BILLS? Corporations and Governments are referring to you as a Corporate Entity, not a Soverign Citizen.