Author Topic: Corporations (via the SCOTUS) examined  (Read 103 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1969
  • Darwins +110/-2
Corporations (via the SCOTUS) examined
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:45:10 PM »
Today on NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

Quote
.......But for 100 years, corporations were not given any constitutional right of political speech; in fact, quite the contrary. In 1907, following a corporate corruption scandal involving prior presidential campaigns, Congress passed a law banning corporate involvement in federal election campaigns. That wall held firm for 70 years.

The first crack came in a case that involved neither candidate elections nor federal law. In 1978 a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money on state ballot initiatives.

...a link from the above 1978 case:
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti
               - from the above link, here is part of Justice Rehnquist's dissent:

Quote
........ Rehnquist claimed that corporate speech is only protected such as it connects to commercial interests.[56] Rehnquist concluded, "although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation. It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes."

If corporations are people, because they consist of people, is allowing a corporation to spend money on elections similar to voting twice?  Probably not, but, as the NPR piece says - very many people are upset at these recent court rulings - that is the reason for the piece, and it seems there must be a proper argument against it.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Corporations (via the SCOTUS) examined
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2014, 01:07:18 PM »
I've noticed that starting in the mid 1970's, corporations have been gaining power and control over the government.  From influencing local, state and now federal elections, to lobbying for certain laws to make it easier for profits to be made or expenses to be cut, to corporate built in tax loopholes and lower tax rates.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for corporations being successful, but they're kind of like a pet that eats until it pukes.  Sometimes you got to take the food bowl away and say that's enough or you'll puke all over my nice furniture.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1297
  • Darwins +56/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Corporations (via the SCOTUS) examined
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2014, 03:12:01 PM »
I kept this quote, but forgot to document where I pulled it from.  Anyway, I think it fits well here...

Quote
So, here's the kicker. According to Christian dogma, God created man, and did so, in his own image.

Okay. Five justices on the US Supreme Court have ruled that Corporations are persons.  In effect, the Supreme Court has elevated a creation of men to be equal with the creation of that which God created, Man. If God made man, and the Supreme Court made corporations equal to man, have the five justices not elevated themselves to be equal to God?

From the religious right on this?  Not a peep.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 03:13:42 PM by Backspace »
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz