The consequences of Citizens United vs. FEC

[Henry Hawk]

The individuals (owners) have rights as individuals. Corporations should not! It is "double dipping" and then there is the fact that corporations are not subjected to being held legally accountable for the violation of an individual's constitutional rights.

Corporations are subject to governmental oversight on some level that varies from industry to industry. That is why we have governmental entities like OSHA and the FAA, etc. (Although, deregulation has served to decrease the level of oversight for many industries, and that has served to bring us things like the mortgage crises and the exacerbation of the economic crises domestically).

No one says a corporation does not have a right to free speech and constitutional protection from malicious prosecution, but what we ARE saying is they do NOT have a vote, nor should they, in our governmental process; and what Citizens United vs, FEC did was provide them a HUGE inroad into our governmental process by enabling corporations to contribute to election campaigns without limitation.

I for one believe that corporations should have zero ability to contribute to any political campaign, and this belief would include organizations like labor unions. IMHO the standard should be if you do not have a vote you are ineligible to contribute toward any political campaign. . . in any way, shape, or form. This would exclude endorsement of a given candidate or political party, but limit it to a predetermined ceiling surrounding how much may be expended toward the purchase and publication of advertising materials, like $200, 000.00 per fiscal year.

Corporations should have no right to vote, but they already have via the ability to purchase without limitation the allegiance of a given candidate or party that would support legislation that increases their position; at levels most individuals would never be able to meet or exceed, even if they banded together.

I can come closer with the idea of a Corp having zero ability to give a political contribution than a "limited" amount, dreamed up by Washington....it is either right or wrong, not kind of/sort of.  I even like the idea, but it is STILL as I see it, a violation of Constitutional Rights.  An admendment is the only constitutional remedy to this.  I think it would have to be clear about WHAT it could restrain and not allow loopholes to restrain Capitalism in any measure.  I do agree, something needs to be done, but the SCOTUS decision is, in my eye, the correct one....perhaps not the best though.

[Palehorse]

I can come closer with the idea of a Corp having zero ability to give a political contribution than a "limited" amount, dreamed up by Washington....it is either right or wrong, not kind of/sort of.  I even like the idea, but it is STILL as I see it, a violation of Constitutional Rights.  An admendment is the only constitutional remedy to this.  I think it would have to be clear about WHAT it could restrain and not allow loopholes to restrain Capitalism in any measure.  I do agree, something needs to be done, but the SCOTUS decision is, in my eye, the correct one....perhaps not the best though.

people |ˈpēpəl|
pluralnoun
1 human beings in general or considered collectively

Since you are so stuck on what the constitution says, doesn't it start with the three words, "We the people. . ."?

[Henry Hawk]

people |ˈpēpəl|
pluralnoun
1 human beings in general or considered collectively

Since you are so stuck on what the constitution says, doesn't it start with the three words, "We the people. . ."?

and it is PEOPLE who ARE the body of Corporations.....NO people-NO corporations.....

I think it comes down to where those on the left think for some reason, that Corporations EVIL.....and those on the right think they are GOOD...

.....corporate successes benefit human beings and corporate failures harm human beings...that is part of natures law.....

[followsthewolf]

Corporate successes benefit only certain human beings, usually officers and investors.

Others are helped collaterally, usually by accident, and usually to a limited degree.

Corporations do not exist for altruistic reasons; they exist to make money.

Let's not blow smoke about how corps are just misunderstood good guys -- that is assigning them attributes they do not deserve.

Nearly all, in my opinion, simply bump people out of the way on the path to making lots of money. The "bumping" does result, however, in lots of grief for lots of people.

So, are corps "evil"?

Not necessarily all the time, but the isolation of those who commit the cruelty from those they victimize makes it easy to dehumanize their victims and convince themselves they do no wrong.

When, however, they do occasionally get caught with their hands in the cookie jars and are found to be directly responsible for their dirty deeds, they try to convince others that they are NOT really to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS, but as simply cogs in the wheel of the corporate machine.

In other words, they (corporations) are human beings when it benefits them, and simply machines when that benefits them.

[Exterminator]

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall? 

[followsthewolf]

 

[Locutus]

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall? 

Now where have I heard that before? 

[followsthewolf]

My turn.

[Locutus]

My turn.

Have at it my friend. 

Hope you have better luck than others. 

[followsthewolf]

Don't expect to, but I'm a sucker.

[The Troll]

    Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall?                  

  I updated your comment.     

[Palehorse]

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just beat your fucking head against a wall?

Mine was almost healed, but I butted the wall again today. . . 

[The Troll]

Mine was almost healed, but I butted the wall again today. . . 

  At least you can say, so far the snow plow hasn't dug up your front yard.   

[Palehorse]

and it is PEOPLE who ARE the body of Corporations.....NO people-NO corporations.....

. . .

And thus those people who represent the corporations are "double dipping" if we give corporations the status of people.

[The Troll]

And thus those people who represent the corporations are "double dipping" if we give corporations the status of people.

  The way I figure it anyone who thinks a corporation is a person, human has for brains.