August 19, 2010
As Hot As Infierno
Photo by LazySunday on stock.xchng
Es una cosa buena que "Citizens United" pasó - porque este giro completo de 180 grados de la Primera Enmienda DEL INFIERNO nos forzará tener nuestro momento de claridad. LOS CORPORACIONES NO SON PERSONAS aunque ellos enmascararon como nosotros para años y años. Ahora el rayo nos tira del burro. Democracía sin corporaciones! Amen!
Comments
Rev, I would handle this
I would handle this issue with extreme care. Corporations, as well as your “group”, are organizations of people. Why should a person be deprived of their human rights when they join with others to act collectively? What about the Constitutional right of freedom of association? For example, corporations are considered “persons” for the purpose of taxation, so should your group not be treated as a “person” for tax exemption?
Neither your group, no corporations have any “special privileges”, corporate “personhood” insures only ordinary freedoms. Both your group and corporations are made up of persons, and these people cannot be forced to give up their rights when they associate with others. I you wish to carry your argument to the extreme, then groups such as “unions,” “churches,” and “political parties” cannot be protected by the Bill of Rights since, like corporation, they are made up of persons seeking a common goal. If you deny corporations “personhood”, you will run into a lot of practical problems. If activists honestly believe that corporations shouldn’t enjoy the same First Amendment freedoms as the rest of us, what do will become of their “groups’” rights?
Brother John
Glaring errors in your argument
Unlike unions and political parties, the heads of corporations are not elected. If the CEO of ConHugeCo decides that he wants Glenn Beck ( or Al Sharpton ) to win a congressional seat and will foot the bill, all the employees at ConHugeCo are forced to follow or quit their jobs. They all _lose_ their rights by association with the corporation, because they _have_ no rights in the corporation. In fact, only the _shareholders_ have these rights, and they are barely exercised in practice.
This argument tying all these things ( unions, political parties, and corporations ) together is disingenous at best, and a sorry reflection on the state of political discourse in America. They are not the same, and we both know it. So what's your agenda?
Your argument is based on
A CEO cannot force an employee to vote, nor know how he/she voted, since we have secret ballots in this country. Also, if money wins elections, why have we never heard of a President Ross Perot or a President Forbes? As for a CEO using corporate money to back a political candidate, how does this practice differ in respect to Unions? Don’t they do the same, spending members’ dues without consulting them? Unions are hardly shining examples of transparency and democracy. Ask Jimmy Hoffa – if you can find him! How votes for the DNC and RNC Chairmen, the rank and file?
Corporate Managers are appointed by directors who are the elected representatives of shareholders who act as the agent for shareholders, managing the corporation as their representative
Corporate personhood allows for perpetuity of the firm. If not for corporate personhood, the death or departure of shareholders would affect the firm’s continued existence. Unincorporated partnerships need to be legally reconstituted each time a partner leaves, dies, or another is added.
As for an agenda, I have none. I am merely discussing the issue at hand.
Brother John
As Hot As Infierno
Of course many groups are created when organizing services to a population of 300 million. Such groups vary from a local church group to a vast supermarket chain.
Pretty simple and obvious stuff so far. Until, that is, various corporations started to realize that if they could bastardize the constitution and be seen as individual people, they could get away with anti-American tactics. For example a multi-national corporation (i.e. not American) can sell goods below market rate as a tactic to close down local American-owned family stores and be protected from many types of protest (governmental or private citizen based) by citing the Constitution.
This is as perverted as the Block Vote system under Stalin where C.E.O's of labor unions divided up the votes of 100 million people between them. It is at odds with the core definition of Democracy and, incidentally, Capitalism.
The only way systems as complex as a democracy governing 300 million people work is to keep them simple and keep them honest. What were the objectives of setting up the system? Well simply to let every person have a say in the governing of their country.
As soon as you start to introduce membership of clubs or corporations as some how buying you extra rights or hiding your responsibility to your neighbors the system becomes corrupt very quickly.
Groups, no matter how big or small, not matter how much money or how little, no matter where they are based, in DC or Alaska, have got nothing to do with our constitution nor our rights nor our democracy. They are groups merely for the convenience of delivering services to a large population.
When we mistake them for people, we will slide back to the very oligarchies this country successfully got away from.
Corporate
Corporations are necessary in a large modern country – unless we all wish to revert to subsistence farming. They do not “bastardize” Constitutional rights and the Courts have upheld the concept since the 1880s. As far as engaging in “anti-American” tactics, corporate “personhood” allows those harmed to seek relief against the company in a Court of Law – assuming that a law has been broken. As for multinationals selling a product at a lower price - more power to them! Lower prices save American families money that they can save, or spend on other items, producing a higher standard of living. These firms also give American investors a return on their investment. Incidentally, few “local American-owned family stores” manufacture the products that they sell – they buy items from the same multinationals as the Big Box stores – but sell these items at a higher price due to economies of scale and the inherent inefficiencies of small businesses. I am also not aware the corporate “personhood” immunizes a company against public protest. Trespassing on Corporate property, and creating a public nuisance, is also illegal on private property owned by an individual. If people were truly annoyed with a company, the most significant form of protest would be to not buy their products.
Multinationals also benefit everyone because they help to create economic ties between nation states and these economic ties bind the hands of nation states, pressuring them to cooperate, contributing to a more peaceful and prosperous world.
As for “Block Voting”, prior to the Citizens United v. FEC" case, for more than 100 years businesses and corporations did not have the same rights to participate in the political life of this country while other “groups”, such as Unions and Environmental Groups, and Democrat political hacks did. Thankfully, businesses all over America can now fight back with political donations to support politicians who strongly believe in capitalism and free-market policies.
There is no way to keep a country of 300 million+ people “simple”, however, corporate “personhood” helps to keep things honest. The interests of a Corporation would rarely, if ever, conflict with the interests of the individual. A corporation is constituted by its members and it is unlikely to assert a right on behalf of the collectivity which is contrary to individual interests.
Corporate “personhood” has nothing to do with “membership”, “personhood” simply gives a Company the most basic Civil Rights. In fact, I would argue that corporate “personhood” should not stop at free speech. Corporate “personhood” should also protect the rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that individuals enjoy under our beloved Constitution.
Corporate “personhood” has everything to do with our Constitution and rights. What probably bothers you is that corporations have profit maximization as their primary goal. Then again, so do most individuals. If rights are to be denied Corporations because of their "uncharitable" objectives, there is no obvious reason why they should not be denied to individuals for the same reason.
In the United States , virtually every small business, church, college and charity is incorporated. To suggest that corporations lack rights would affect a great many rights and protections that we have come to rely on. Be careful what you wish for.
Brother John
As Hot As Infierno
Amen, Rev!
Corporations are NOT people. Neither should they be allowed the rights of individuals merely because they are made up of individuals. I work for a major corporation and let me tell you my voice only travels so far. And on specific items. More importantly my corporation doesn't represent my politcal beliefs AT ALL. Neither do I expect it to. Hence the argument that corporations deserve the rights of people because they're made up of people is specious indeed! For that matter, if we used that argument, towns ought to be considered people. States ought to be given the rights of individulas.
Keep up the Good Fight!
So, should the Rev's group
BTW
As for your employer, the company uses its "political" speech to improve it profits. This, of course, creates income for the company's workers and dividends for investors. In this sense, your interests as well as your employers are the same. Should your company be muzzled while those who want to hurt it [ie Unions, political/environmental groups] enjoy unlimited freedom to do so? This would be un-Democratic.
Brother John
Post new comment