PDA

View Full Version : Today's 1A SCOTUS decision bodes well for McDonald...


gcrtkd
01-21-2010, 8:13 PM
A sign of things to come for McDonald v. Chicago? i.e., Gura's gambit to try to take down Cruikshank and Slaughter-House might be in front of the right court at the right time...

From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews

excerpts...

"...its first major decision of the current term might signal a new willingness to act boldly."

"They overturned two of the court's past decisions -- including one made as recently as six years ago..."

"Roberts and Alito wrote separately to endorse the majority decision and to rebut charges that it was ignoring the respect for the court's past decisions -- known as stare decisis -- that each had pledged to uphold during their confirmation hearings."

"Roberts seemed to be speaking to liberals when he wrote that stare decisis cannot be seen as an "inexorable command." If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants," he said, referring to previous court decisions."

Ironically, both the NRA and the ACLU supported the winning side...

"The question is, what will come next? Perhaps they have exhausted themselves on this one case, or it could have the opposite effect and be energizing. I really don't know which it will be." McDonald!

-gcrtkd

Al Norris
01-21-2010, 9:10 PM
I don't believe in coincidence.

Court watchers have been waiting for an exceptionally long time for this decision.

For those that weren't watching, this case was originally argued on Mar. 24, 2009. It was re-argued on Sept. 9, 2009. Not unprecedented, but highly unusual nevertheless.

The phrase "stare decisis" was used 4 times in the Courts opinion (Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority). Justice Roberts spent the greater portion of his separate opinion justifying the departure of standing upon prior precedent (stare decisis). Justice Stevens, in his dissent, spends a good portion defending practice of stare decisis.

Then there is the timing of the release of this decision - roughly halfway between merits briefs and orals in McDonald.

I believe it signals what we will see in that decision.

hawk84
01-21-2010, 9:20 PM
Giving corporations rights that belong to individuals will be the the downfall of this republic

Fjold
01-21-2010, 9:21 PM
I don't think that I can wait until March or June.

7x57
01-21-2010, 9:28 PM
Giving corporations rights that belong to individuals will be the the downfall of this republic

Nonsense. You are blinded by socialist rhetoric. If the NRA can't spend the money I send them to lobby for the rights I ask them to protect, then it violates not only my First Amendment right to speak through an organization of my choosing but also, possibly, something related to my right of free association and peaceable assembly for redress of grievances. Because I certainly assemble, in virtual fashion, with several million other gun owners in the NRA and I certainly do expect them to fight like pit bulls for the redress of certain long-standing grievances.

One of the purposes of demonizing "corporations" is to blind you to the fact that the government is controlling who can speak. That's a positive feedback loop that by itself can destroy the Republic.

I'm waiting to find out whether this shoots the liberal fascist's dream of reinstating the fairness doctrine in the head.

7x57

hawk84
01-21-2010, 9:33 PM
7x57

the NRA, the ACLU, etc are not corporations, they are lobbying groups doing exactly what you describe- they are justly lobbying the interests of MANY people


Corporations along the lines of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Haliburton, Microsoft, etc, are not lobbying the interests of MANY people, but a few people that want to use the government to further their profit margins


TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

hawk84
01-21-2010, 9:35 PM
and while you go throwing "fascism" around, look up what the word means

by definition it is the blending of Government and Corporations


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.

curtisfong
01-21-2010, 9:37 PM
7x57

the NRA, the ACLU, etc are not corporations, they are lobbying groups doing exactly what you describe- they are justly lobbying the interests of MANY people


Agreed. Corporations have access that grass roots organizations like the NRA only dream about. Be careful what you wish for.

kperry
01-21-2010, 9:38 PM
Nonsense. You are blinded by socialist rhetoric. If the NRA can't spend the money I send them to lobby for the rights I ask them to protect, then it violates not only my First Amendment right to speak through an organization of my choosing...

I agree with this sentiment, however, until a corporation can be jailed for malfeasance - I fear that this decision will have a negative effect. Not so much that the NRA or ACLU can fund candidates' campaigns, but that Bechtel, Roche, or Halliburton can - with resources far beond the reach of any citizen's group.

MrClamperSir
01-21-2010, 9:40 PM
Giving corporations rights that belong to individuals will be the the downfall of this republic

Haven't the unions been donating endless amounts to the dems for a long, long time?

GuyW
01-21-2010, 9:42 PM
the NRA, the ACLU, etc are not corporations....

TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

? WTF - those 2 are most certainly corporations...



and while you go throwing....., look up what the word means


Uh, yeah....
.

coolusername2007
01-21-2010, 9:43 PM
I will err on the side of liberty any day before I err on the side of control. More information, ads, points of view is better than less...always.

hawk84
01-21-2010, 9:44 PM
it seems some people can't see a difference between groups that represent THE PEOPLE (NRA, ACLU, etc)

and Corp. which represent a handful of RICH PEOPLE(and buy rich I don't mean 200k a year, or 2million a year, but truly rich)

command_liner
01-21-2010, 9:44 PM
Need to know what is fascism? Skip wikipedia, or even a
dictionary. Read the book by the man that made up the term.

Benito Mossolini: "What is Fascism", 1932. Available at your
library.

7x is correct in using the terms Liberal Fascism, as recently
written by Goldberg. Check "Heaven on Earth" by Muravachik
for some good background.

coolusername2007
01-21-2010, 9:45 PM
Haven't the unions been donating endless amounts to the dems for a long, long time?

For many employees who have no choice in whether or not they have to be union members paying union dues. You want this job...you will be a union member. You will fund the democratic political machine whether or not you agree with it. Sounds a lot like control to me.

hawk84
01-21-2010, 9:50 PM
Corporations along the lines of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Haliburton, Microsoft, etc, are not lobbying the interests of MANY people, but a few people that want to use the government to further their profit margins


They are far closer to my interests than the free ride our current regime wanted to give to the unions.

In any case, it is really irrelevant how you score it--the only thing that matters is that the government is not permitted to be scoring it. If you grant the government that kind of power so it will go after whoever it is you dislike, you are the sort of person who is likely to not quite understand what happened when that power is used against you as well.

7x57

MrClamperSir
01-21-2010, 9:50 PM
For many employees who have no choice in whether or not they have to be union members paying union dues. You want this job...you will be a union member. You will fund the democratic political machine whether or not you agree with it. Sounds a lot like control to me.

Yeah that's what I mean. It seems this decision levels the playing field a little.

Maestro Pistolero
01-21-2010, 9:57 PM
If our corporations (NRA, etc) had the same access to the media corporations that other corporations have, THAT would be a leveling of the playing field. How does one address meaningful free speech when the corporations that control the media, thus speech, won't sell airtime to the NRA during an election?

RRangel
01-21-2010, 10:01 PM
Haven't the unions been donating endless amounts to the dems for a long, long time?

Yes, it's called union dues that go straight to the statists' coffers.

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:01 PM
Corporations along the lines of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Haliburton, Microsoft, etc, are not lobbying the interests of MANY people, but a few people that want to use the government to further their profit margins


They are far closer to my interests than the free ride our current regime wanted to give to the unions.

In any case, it is really irrelevant how you score it--the only thing that matters is that the government is not permitted to be scoring it. If you grant the government that kind of power so it will go after whoever it is you dislike, you are the sort of person who is likely to not quite understand what happened when that power is used against you as well.

7x57

MrClamperSir
01-21-2010, 10:02 PM
Perhaps now that corps. can give unlimited amounts, the price is right for said airtime on the otherwise unfriendly networks.

hawk84
01-21-2010, 10:10 PM
They are far closer to my interests than the free ride our current regime wanted to give to the unions.

In any case, it is really irrelevant how you score it--the only thing that matters is that the government is not permitted to be scoring it. If you grant the government that kind of power so it will go after whoever it is you dislike, you are the sort of person who is likely to not quite understand what happened when that power is used against you as well.

7x57

really, your interest is to take as much of your money as possible

your interest is more bought and paid for politicians loyal to the companies they put them into their seats, and don't give a damn about you

cbn620
01-21-2010, 10:10 PM
Haven't the unions been donating endless amounts to the dems for a long, long time?

This is another one we often confuse. Most unions are corporations when you get down to it, some are not. Many have non-corporate avenues that can support political causes, but those are just like any other PAC or legislative action or lobbying group.

I'm sure the NRA has a corporate division somewhere with tons of money they wish they could dump on politics. I believe it must be used through the NRA-ILA though, which is a separate wing of the organization and its primary front in the courts and in politics.

Agreed that this is bad juju...don't know what this means for gun rights but I have a feeling this is not good news for anyone, right-left-center, libertarian-authoritarian, and everything in between. Well except for corporations.

cbn620
01-21-2010, 10:12 PM
and while you go throwing "fascism" around, look up what the word means

by definition it is the blending of Government and Corporations


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

No, that's wikipedia and they're clearly a socialist propaganda website. ;)

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:14 PM
and while you go throwing "fascism" around, look up what the word means

by definition it is the blending of Government and Corporations


And therefore fits quite perfectly the bank bailouts, the nationalization of GM, and many other things. But you might as well know that I will not coddle the tendency to make that kind of taxonomy of dictators and absolute statists anyway. I regard Stalin and Hitler as being very close kin, and the enmity between the ideologies is there for the same reason that two species whose niches overlap are in conflict. I see no reason to serve their ideological interests in making the difference seem greater than it is. Nor am I particularly interested in making fine distinctions based on whether a given regime has a greater or lesser tendency to blend state and union than it has state and corporation. Neither is to be given an ounce of special consideration, nor disability. As far as I am concerned, both may form freely, both may lobby freely, and neither may have any special status before the law.

If you're also insulted by calling people socialists who wish the state to completely control the means of production without technically owning it, get used to disappointment on that bit of terminology as well. I refuse to help people pretend as though control isn't the important parameter. Though with the nationalization of a good part of automobile production perhaps it seemed like it was no longer necessary to hide behind even that fig leaf and just admit who and what they really are.

7x57

Theseus
01-21-2010, 10:18 PM
A non-profit corporation is still a corporation.

If a corporation has the responsibilities of a living citizen it should have the rights.

kf6tac
01-21-2010, 10:19 PM
THe NRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
is an American non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization which lists as its goals the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights an

The ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization which focuses on litigation and communication efforts, and the American Civil Liberties Union, a 501(c)(4) organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_law

And if we're really going to split hairs about it, not-for-profit organizations (also known as not-for-profit corporations) are still required to incorporate.

Case in point, pulled from the New York Secretary of State:

Selected Entity Name: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC.
Selected Entity Status Information
Current Entity Name: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC.
Initial DOS Filing Date: SEPTEMBER 26, 1966
County: NEW YORK
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

Here's the NRA, too:

Selected Entity Name: NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Selected Entity Status Information
Current Entity Name: NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Initial DOS Filing Date: NOVEMBER 20, 1871
County: NEW YORK
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

rynando
01-21-2010, 10:20 PM
[QUOTE=hawk84;3680596]THe NRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
is an American non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization which lists as its goals the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights an

The ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization which focuses on litigation and communication efforts, and the American Civil Liberties Union, a 501(c)(4) organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_law/QUOTE]

The ACLU Foundation and the ACLU are both corporations. The NRA and it's organizations (NRA-ILA, Foundation, etc) are all corporations.

R

hawk84
01-21-2010, 10:23 PM
A non-profit corporation is still a corporation.

If a corporation has the responsibilities of a living citizen it should have the rights.
show me a corporation that can be drafted to fight, or serve on a jury



ok-let me clarify what i mean by corporation, FOR PROFIT ENTITIES

MudCamper
01-21-2010, 10:24 PM
I'm going to form a corporation this year. I'm my only employee. So to those that think that corporations are evil and deserve no 1A rights, does that apply to me?

GuyW
01-21-2010, 10:24 PM
the NRA, the ACLU, etc are not corporations,





[QUOTE=kf6tac;3680802]

.....not-for-profit organizations (also known as not-for-profit corporations) are still required to incorporate.




The ACLU Foundation and the ACLU are both corporations. The NRA and it's organizations (NRA-ILA, Foundation, etc) are all corporations.





.

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:30 PM
and Corp. which represent a handful of RICH PEOPLE(and buy rich I don't mean 200k a year, or 2million a year, but truly rich)

The fun thing about the left is that they have long lists of people it's OK to be bigoted towards in the name of tolerance. How, pray tell, may I know which rich people are sufficiently rich so as to possess no right to free speech? Which rich people may I strip of their right to use their property as they see fit? By what litmus test may I determine which rich people may be denied equal protection under the law? In what way may I determine which rich people do not possess the inalienable rights the rest of us po' folk do?

What is the extent of our powers once we have thoroughly stripped them of their human rights? Can we confiscate their private property, the private property that Blackstone said was one of the three most important rights of Englishmen? Can we perhaps imprison them as the Bolsheviks did? Behead them as Robespierre did? Perhaps render their fat into fuel oil, soap, and wax so they can finally serve the people instead of leeching off of the proletariat? Because that's where your line of reasoning inevitably ends--the proletarian envy of the bourgeoisie, fed to the point where the proles gave up their rights in hopes the state would punish the bourgeoisie be a good master to them. You just didn't use that language. Why not? (I can tell you why I usually don't--it saves me having to spell proletariat and bourgeoisie.)

Once again, the real core of the problem is to give in to the silky whisper of the state that it can save you from *those* people, whoever they are, if only you give it the power. Marx did yeoman work of convincing you who *those* people were, I guess.

Me, I vote for the soap and wax business. Seems worth the price of freedom to me.

7x57

kf6tac
01-21-2010, 10:30 PM
7x57

the NRA, the ACLU, etc are not corporations, they are lobbying groups doing exactly what you describe- they are justly lobbying the interests of MANY people


Corporations along the lines of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Haliburton, Microsoft, etc, are not lobbying the interests of MANY people, but a few people that want to use the government to further their profit margins


TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

Here's the kicker: so what?

If I want to form an entity to lobby for a viewpoint that I believe in, what does it matter if choose to apply for 501(c)(4) status and garner the support of a bunch of people, or if I choose to incorporate quickly and can only get one other person to join my cause? Do the two people teaming up to form a corporate entity have less of a right to associate than many people?

GuyW
01-21-2010, 10:32 PM
it seems some people can't see a difference between groups that represent THE PEOPLE (NRA, ACLU, etc)

and Corp. which represent a handful of RICH PEOPLE(and buy rich I don't mean 200k a year, or 2million a year, but truly rich)

Care to estimate how many corporations are owned by Calgunners??

And perhaps you can estimate how many "non-profits" are merely vehicles for ultra-rich to push their particular leftist agenda??

.

hawk84
01-21-2010, 10:33 PM
I'm going to form a corporation this year. I'm my only employee. So to those that think that corporations are evil and deserve no 1A rights, does that apply to me?

should you get two votes, one for your corporation and one for you as an individual?

hawk84
01-21-2010, 10:38 PM
The fun thing about the left is that they have long lists of people it's OK to be bigoted towards in the name of tolerance. How, pray tell, may I know which rich people are sufficiently rich so as to possess no right to free speech? Which rich people may I strip of their right to use their property as they see fit? By what litmus test may I determine which rich people may be denied equal protection under the law? In what way may I determine which rich people do not possess the inalienable rights the rest of us po' folk do?

What is the extent of our powers once we have thoroughly stripped them of their human rights? Can we confiscate their private property, the private property that Blackstone said was one of the three most important rights of Englishmen? Can we perhaps imprison them as the Bolsheviks did? Behead them as Robespierre did? Perhaps render their fat into fuel oil, soap, and wax so they can finally serve the people instead of leeching off of the proletariat? Because that's where your line of reasoning inevitably ends--the proletarian envy of the bourgeoisie, fed to the point where the proles gave up their rights in hopes the state would punish the bourgeoisie be a good master to them. You just didn't use that language. Why not? (I can tell you why I usually don't--it saves me having to spell proletariat and bourgeoisie.)

Once again, the real core of the problem is to give in to the silky whisper of the state that it can save you from *those* people, whoever they are, if only you give it the power. Marx did yeoman work of convincing you who *those* people were, I guess.

Me, I vote for the soap and wax business. Seems worth the price of freedom to me.

7x57
i love you logic, "bigoted", "left"


im not talking about stripping any individual of there rights, a vote is a vote(and cast by an individual)

the problem is that some "FEW" people use corporate wealth to further their personal political agenda, its no better or differen then a union forcing you to join, and the leader of that union using union funds to further their political agenda

dustoff31
01-21-2010, 10:42 PM
should you get two votes, one for your corporation and one for you as an individual?

Or put another way which should be subject to taxation without representation, he or his corporation?

hawk84
01-21-2010, 10:43 PM
Here's the kicker: so what?

If I want to form an entity to lobby for a viewpoint that I believe in, what does it matter if choose to apply for 501(c)(4) status and garner the support of a bunch of people, or if I choose to incorporate quickly and can only get one other person to join my cause? Do the two people teaming up to form a corporate entity have less of a right to associate than many people?

so what- is that when you allow corporations to control the spread of information you end up with 1 million voices being drowned out by a handful of extremely well funded voices

its how we end up with presidents like Obama, noone had heard of him prior to the start of election season, but a handful of people spread the information about how great a canditate he was, and whala, all of a sudden he's all you see on tv and the people vote for him




2 people have as much a right to associate as 2 million, but the asscoiation of 2 shouldn't be given the louder voice

how many people contributed to Ron Pauls Campaign vs say....Guiliani, who got more airtime..............theres your problem right there

hawk84
01-21-2010, 10:44 PM
Or put another way which should be subject to taxation without representation, he or his corporation?

he has a vote just like any other man- don't pull some nonsense that he isn't represented (albeit it admittedly poorly)

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:46 PM
show me a corporation that can be drafted to fight, or serve on a jury


Actually, they can and are drafted to fight. Care to guess why sewing-machine companies were suddenly making infantry rifles? Care to guess what happens to control of the merchant fleet (well, when we had a merchant fleet) during wartime? Yup. Drafted, though we don't usually call it that.


ok-let me clarify what i mean by corporation, FOR PROFIT ENTITIES

Ah. So profit is the evil, evil thing that means someone is no longer human enough to have rights. Good to know who I can violate and oppress with impunity.

Of course, there are a few little matters I'm not clear on. Are non-profit and not-for-profit charities who don't pay dividends to shareholders but pay huge salaries to their executives exempt? Or can I dehumanize their officers because they, personally, are making a profit even if the corporation does not? What about organizations incorporated as not for profit who serve the vested interests of others who profit, such as the many non-profits formed principally by corporations?

This is an especially useful game because every firearm maker is doing it for a profit. A lot of those capitalist pigs happen to donate money to the NRA in hopes of retaining the shreds of the right to freely engage in the business of their choosing they have left. How wonderful for you to have shown me a way to muzzle them while giving free reign to pretty much all the gun control organizations, nonprofits all I believe, to funnel George Soros' and the Joyce Foundations' money into destroying their ability to do business (and incidentally my right to purchase their products)?

Or perhaps, and this is the most clever part of your proposal of all, you mean that none of the news organizations--for-profit corporations all--have rights. That's wonderful, because it's annoying when they quote that stupid First Amendment thing against the state as though they have rights to speech and press that prevent the government from making them do the right thing. Now we can ensure that they only say things that please the state--they're for profit, they have no Constitutional protection!

It's a brave, brave new world you speak of, I'll give you that.

7x57

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:49 PM
I'm going to form a corporation this year. I'm my only employee. So to those that think that corporations are evil and deserve no 1A rights, does that apply to me?

Depends, are you going to make a p...p...I can hardly say the vile word. You know, the p word. *That* word. Cuz if you're the kind of scum that makes a p...p...pro...profit, you not only don't have rights but you deserve to be made into scented oil and candle wax.

But not soap, of course, the proles don't bathe and so you wouldn't be serving the wage-slaves you formerly exploited if we made you into soap.

7x57

7x57
01-21-2010, 10:56 PM
the problem is that some "FEW" people use corporate wealth to further their personal political agenda,

So what you're saying is *they* have no right to use personal property as they see fit? Or perhaps *they* simply have no right to fight for what they believe? Gosh. How could that possibly go wrong down the road? Seems safe to me. The Bradys would *never* turn around use that line of attack against the evil arms profiteers that are my only means to exercise my Right to Arms in pursuit of *their* personal political agenda. George Soros certainly wouldn't push his personal political agenda by acting through non-profits who are thereby exempt from the disabilities you envision for evil, hateful, selfish profit-stealing corporations.

7x57

hawk84
01-21-2010, 11:00 PM
Ah. So profit is the evil, evil thing that means someone is no longer human enough to have rights. Good to know who I can violate and oppress with impunity.

7x57
do you even listen to yourself

A CORPORATION IS NOT A HUMAN
A CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS


just because a corporation is limited to only do certain things, in no way infringes upon the individual rights of the human beings employed by that corporation

if the law says a person can only donate X to a campaign

why should one person be able to donate X to that campaign as an individual, and another X as a corporation, in essence giving him twice the voice of his fellow man, next we'll be saying corps. can vote which in REALITY would be giving him twice the voice of his fellow man

but i guess all men being equal is an outdated idea.......

wildhawker
01-21-2010, 11:10 PM
First of all, as others have already pointed out, you grossly misunderstand corporations codes, structure and operation.

All corporations have shareholders of some form. As in the NRA, they are called "members"; within the bylaws exist different classes of "member" with varying privileges and benefits, some of which have voting rights while others may not. In the case of Chevron, they have "shareholders".

Chevron's shareholders, interestingly, are *us*. Do you have a 401k?

For example: I have some amount of money in Fidelity's 2050 fund (FFFHX), a diversified fund managed to include higher-risk investments early that level as the fund matures. Within this fund is 11.96% of Fidelity's Disciplined Equity Fund (FDEQX), which invests in domestic securities. Here we find in its composition... CHEVRON. That's right, the evil empire itself!

Top 10 holdings (currently):
CHEVRON CORP
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO
MICROSOFT CORP
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO
PFIZER INC
XTO ENERGY INC
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO
TYCO INTL LTD
ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV NV
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

So, when you talk about a "few" people making money, those few are really millions of Americans who have invested their futures into the returns that company might bring by increasing its market value and/or by dividends.

When Chevron lobbies on its behalf, it's also doing it for *me", since I have a vested interest in its success via the shareholder fund.

Some corporate executives might use a company inappropriately, but remember that they answer to a board, and that board answers to the shareholders. Just like politicians answer to the voters.

i love you logic, "bigoted", "left"


im not talking about stripping any individual of there rights, a vote is a vote(and cast by an individual)

the problem is that some "FEW" people use corporate wealth to further their personal political agenda, its no better or differen then a union forcing you to join, and the leader of that union using union funds to further their political agenda

hawk84
01-21-2010, 11:11 PM
http://www.theseminal.com/2009/03/03/the-founding-fathers-did-not-want-large-corporations/

The first corporations appeared in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries and were chartered by governments for specific public missions. The largest and most powerful of these early corporations was The East India Company, founded by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 to facilitate trade between England and her colonies. At the height of its power, The East India Compnay held economic control over 1/5 of world’s population and maintained a private army of over 250,000 soldiers. Unjust taxation policies favoring this company insured that the crown, and not the colonists themselves, reaped the benefits from the colonies’ natural wealth and industry.

During the 18th century, Enlightenment ideals began to challenge the power of monarchies and corporations, and the power of the queen’s corporation began to fade. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 signaled not only a victory over the economic tyranny of the East India Company, it also helped pave the way for the political uprising known as the American Revolution. Also around this time, Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations, arguing for free market economics, but against the concept of large corporations, claiming that they limit fair competition among smaller-sized merchants and artisans.

hawk84
01-21-2010, 11:18 PM
First of all, as others have already pointed out, you grossly misunderstand corporations codes, structure and operation.

All corporations have shareholders of some form. As in the NRA, they are called "members"; within the bylaws exist different classes of "member" with varying privileges and benefits, some of which have voting rights while others may not. In the case of Chevron, they have "shareholders".

Chevron's shareholders, interestingly, are *us*. Do you have a 401k?

For example: I have some amount of money in Fidelity's 2050 fund (FFFHX), a diversified fund managed to include higher-risk investments early that level as the fund matures. Within this fund is 11.96% of Fidelity's Disciplined Equity Fund (FDEQX), which invests in domestic securities. Here we find in its composition... CHEVRON. That's right, the evil empire itself!

Top 10 holdings (currently):
CHEVRON CORP
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO
MICROSOFT CORP
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO
PFIZER INC
XTO ENERGY INC
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO
TYCO INTL LTD
ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV NV
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

So, when you talk about a "few" people making money, those few are really millions of Americans who have invested their futures into the returns that company might bring by increasing its market value and/or by dividends.

When Chevron lobbies on its behalf, it's also doing it for *me", since I have a vested interest in its success via the shareholder fund.

Some corporate executives might use a company inappropriately, but remember that they answer to a board, and that board answers to the shareholders. Just like politicians answer to the voters.

and yet your 401k has likely lost a LOT of value lately...meanwhile.......how are those at the top of Goldman Sachs doing? we all bailed them out, and they walked away rich....but yes....lets continue to let them buy politicians at will......we like being raped for 700 billion dollars

7x57
01-21-2010, 11:20 PM
Here's some fun. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_of_Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward), which seems to be the Supreme Court case which really extended the identity of a corporation as a legal person, was about whether New Hampshire could nationalize Dartmouth College. Interesting how the same issue came up in another age of government seizure of private property as well. May the current ruling defend against our statists as well.

7x57

wildhawker
01-21-2010, 11:21 PM
Here's some fun. Dartmouth College v. Woodward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_of_Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward), which seems to be the Supreme Court case which really extended the identity of a corporation as a legal person, was about whether New Hampshire could nationalize Dartmouth College. Interesting how the same issue came up in another age of government seizure of private property as well. May the current ruling defend against our statists as well.

7x57

Here here.

kf6tac
01-21-2010, 11:22 PM
and yet your 401k has likely lost a LOT of value lately...meanwhile.......how are those at the top of Goldman Sachs doing? we all bailed them out, and they walked away rich....but yes....lets continue to let them buy politicians at will......we like being raped for 700 billion dollars

If we choose to speak through collective entities that do so poorly, that is our choice -- not the government's.

wildhawker
01-21-2010, 11:27 PM
and yet your 401k has likely lost a LOT of value lately...meanwhile.......how are those at the top of Goldman Sachs doing? we all bailed them out, and they walked away rich....but yes....lets continue to let them buy politicians at will......we like being raped for 700 billion dollars

I'm not advocating taxpayer subsidized commerce; I would, however, take exception to your implied argument that those representing my stake in any organization be less than that of the best. If the best requires compensation commensurate with their abilities, then I have no problem with that cost of doing business.

Take the long view. I may have taken a hit in the current market, but a) that's a risk I accepted when I vested in the market and b) my portfolio is structured to provide a net gain at retirement, which is a ways off yet.

Telperion
01-21-2010, 11:31 PM
I have a simple prescription for those who want corporations and corporate influence out of the government: keep government out of corporations. No company wants to piss money away to buy "men in Washington" to lobby for its survival against some blowhard senator who has devised a new piece of legislation on how the federal government should direct the private economy. If the government respects the boundary between it and private concerns, then there will be little reason or opportunity for corporations to inveigle favor or advantage from the government.

pullnshoot25
01-21-2010, 11:32 PM
Me, I vote for the soap and wax business. Seems worth the price of freedom to me.

7x57

Let's sell their fat @$$es right back to them!

wildhawker
01-21-2010, 11:37 PM
I have a simple prescription for those who want corporations and corporate influence out of the government: keep government out of corporations. No company wants to piss money away to buy "men in Washington" to lobby for its survival against some blowhard senator who has devised a new piece of legislation on how the federal government should direct the private economy. If the government respects the boundary between it and private concerns, then there will be little reason or opportunity for corporations to inveigle favor or advantage from the government.

Exactly, and is really the core of the issue.

pullnshoot25
01-21-2010, 11:38 PM
and while you go throwing "fascism" around, look up what the word means

by definition it is the blending of Government and Corporations


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Just to let you know, you are pitting yourself against one of the more lengthy yet eloquent speakers that this board has to offer (7x57). The man is a friggin word machine.

Just sayin'...

MrClamperSir
01-21-2010, 11:45 PM
Agreed that this is bad juju...

:eek: I never meant to insinuate that I thought this was a bad thing. In fact I was pointing out that the unions have had a voice in politics, which favor the left, now the corporations, which tend to favor the right, will make a more level playing field.

hoffmang
01-21-2010, 11:55 PM
I used to run a corporation that had the best interest of the people at heart. We spent a lot of horrible grubby money (corporate assets) to make sure that your rights were defended.

Emusic actively lobbied to keep legal MP3s from being made illegal overnight by the RIAA. Now the RIAA is a corporation and so was Emusic. Your problem is that not all corporations are evil - in fact most well run ones are so far from it that it's funny...

I suggest you read T. J. Rodger's response to some Nuns who had similar ideas: http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34986

Freedom of speech for ACLU and NRA leads to less power for incumbent politicians. This case was about incumbency, not corporations...

-Gene

wildhawker
01-21-2010, 11:58 PM
:eek: I never meant to insinuate that I thought this was a bad thing. In fact I was pointing out that the unions have had a voice in politics, which favor the left, now the corporations, which tend to favor the right, will make a more level playing field.

Interestingly, most of the top contributing corps (nationally) favor Dems and Dem PACs. This includes the "big banks".

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A

Hopi
01-22-2010, 12:03 AM
If the government respects the boundary between it and private concerns, then there will be little reason or opportunity for corporations to inveigle favor or advantage from the government.

Ding Ding Ding.

HondaMasterTech
01-22-2010, 12:07 AM
7x57;

What do you do for a living?

obeygiant
01-22-2010, 12:11 AM
Just to let you know, you are pitting yourself against one of the more lengthy yet eloquent speakers that this board has to offer (7x57). The man is a friggin word machine.

Just sayin'...

:rofl2: well said.

MrClamperSir
01-22-2010, 12:14 AM
Interestingly, most of the top contributing corps (nationally) favor Dems and Dem PACs. This includes the "big banks".

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A

Will this ruling change these statistics?

pullnshoot25
01-22-2010, 12:24 AM
7x57;

What do you do for a living?

Being a smart*** comes to mind. :p

In all seriousness though, I think he is a physicist. Correct me if I am wrong, 7x57.

bulgron
01-22-2010, 12:34 AM
Giving corporations rights that belong to individuals will be the the downfall of this republic

I don't understand this argument. Usually one thinks of Rights as belonging to people, and certainly many of the amendments, and portions of the amendments, indicate that they're talking about rights held by The People. But not so in the relevant portion of the 1A. Check it out:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.

It doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the people's freedom of speech." It just says, "the freedom of speech."

I see nothing there that indicates the freedom of speech is held solely and only by People. Indeed, that section reads to me that pretty much anything that is capable of speech is free to express that speech.

Like people.

And churches.

City governments.

Clubs.

Fraternal orders.

Unions.

Corporations.

Works for me. But what really baffles me is how people can be so eager to limit rights, any rights. After all, if one can limit the speech of a corporation, then what's to stop the limitation of the speech of a club or church or some person that you really really don't like.

A right is either applied as widely and broadly as is possible, or it isn't any damn good at all.

I, for one, applaud the Supreme Court's decision in this case.

wildhawker
01-22-2010, 12:43 AM
Will this ruling change these statistics?

Substantively? Maybe in some concerns, but generally I don't expect to see a "flood". Smart people manage money, and smart people will always manage to get money where they want it to go.

hoffmang
01-22-2010, 12:48 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Also, "or of the press" isn't exactly the people. Most printers in 1789 were corporations. Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Gazette_%28newspaper%29) isn't exactly a person but certainly had the freedom of speech.

-Gene

7x57
01-22-2010, 12:59 AM
I used to run a corporation that had the best interest of the people at heart.


Hmm, you sound like a capitalist exploiter of the laboring class, and the other side has convinced me of your wickedness. Watch it, you're only fit to serve as votive candles in someone's shrine to Gaiette, Gaia's perky kid sister(*).

And to be at the forefront of the California gun-rights battle, which most benefits people who can't afford to live in well-patrolled neighborhoods...ack...it's like my worldview isn't explaining reality...must try to focus on the violence inherent in the system(**)...class consciousness...unable to maintain worldview integrity....

OK, better now. :D


I suggest you read T. J. Rodger's response to some Nuns who had similar ideas: http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34986


Now that's classic. Who knew being rude to nuns could be so satisfying?


Freedom of speech for ACLU and NRA leads to less power for incumbent politicians. This case was about incumbency, not corporations...


To be fair, it's possible the OP is being a rational agent. I think the Democrats are very, very, not to say desperately in favor of incumbent advantage just now. :43:

7x57

* Who says I don't have a spiritual side?

** A tip of the hat to Arthur, King of the Britons and the Python gang for that.

nick
01-22-2010, 12:59 AM
7x57;

What do you do for a living?

This was your first mistake - you asked :p

7x57
01-22-2010, 1:03 AM
Exactly, and is really the core of the issue.

Indeed, it was very well put. I'll be hanged if I can figure out how he said it in less than 1500 words, though. :rofl:

7x57

wildhawker
01-22-2010, 1:05 AM
Indeed, it was very well put. I'll be hanged if I can figure out how he said it in less than 1500 words, though. :rofl:

7x57

If only you were paid by the word... :D

retired
01-22-2010, 1:11 AM
I've edited the posts of a few who insisted on basically calling another a fool. Other than that, this thread is a good discussion of divergent opinions. Let's let it continue in that manner so no posts have to be deleted or the thread is locked. Thanks.

7x57
01-22-2010, 1:19 AM
:eek: I never meant to insinuate that I thought this was a bad thing. In fact I was pointing out that the unions have had a voice in politics, which favor the left, now the corporations, which tend to favor the right, will make a more level playing field.

Actually, what besides the news media makes you think corporations favor the right? It's amazing what you learn if you think about the dynamics instead of listening to what reporters learned at Ivy-league schools.

The left's eternal interest to meddle in the economy means that they do a *lot* of things that create artificial winners and losers, and he who influences that with skill and resources wins bigger, and easier, than those who have to make money by actually selling a better product for less money. Further, their belief that some corporations are "too big to fail" is an absolute godsend for those big enough to reach that category. It means, among other things, you don't have to run a company as though it could ever go belly-up. You know, like GM did with the shining example of Chrysler to remind it that it needn't make hard choices. The liberal state-controlled economy is rough on small businesses that aren't big enough to "matter" (though to those who they employ they matter a great deal), but a cushy deal for those who are.

The problem with the *genuine* right is they believe corporations should sink or swim on their own, and that if they sink it is better for the economy that they fail and their assets be redistributed to better companies and certainly that the government has no business meddling. There just isn't as much scope for gaming the system to get money by syphoning off taxes collected at (usually metaphorical) gunpoint instead of persuading free agents to purchase product. So politically, they are of more use to the small to medium businessman.

7x57

7x57
01-22-2010, 1:22 AM
This was your first mistake - you asked :p

What if I foster a sense of mystery by not answering the question? :D

Maybe I *am* an international man of mystery after all.

7x57

hoffmang
01-22-2010, 1:23 AM
* Who says I don't have a spiritual side?


Is it spiritual when you're focused on huge tracts of (perky) land?

-Gene

Meplat
01-22-2010, 1:27 AM
corporations will be the the downfall of this republic

Fixed it for ya.

wildhawker
01-22-2010, 1:36 AM
I can't wait to buy my government broccoli at the government grocery store... :rolleyes:

7x57
01-22-2010, 1:38 AM
Is it spiritual when you're focused on huge tracts of (perky) land?


For a hedonistic philistine like you, yes. A vastly more evolved consciousness, I of course achieve a far higher and more abstract philosophical plane as I contemplate the transcendent, metaphysical...tracts...um, the transcendent...huge...metaphysical...tracts of perky land....uh, what was that middle part again?(*)

Show of hands, who thinks Gene needs to stop posting from the bedroom? :D I invent a simple, pure nature goddess religion and now that Gene has had his way with it I feel like I need a shower. Or some great tracts of land. Or something.

7x57

(*) And a hat tip to Otto, who taught me everything I know about philosophy.

bulgron
01-22-2010, 1:38 AM
I can't wait to buy my government broccoli at the government grocery store... :rolleyes:

Well, it's got to be better than government cheese.

Seriously. Never eat the government cheese.

wildhawker
01-22-2010, 1:40 AM
Well, it's got to be better than government cheese.

Seriously. Never eat the government cheese.

I wish someone would have told me that about an hour ago... gotta go!

nick
01-22-2010, 2:01 AM
What if I foster a sense of mystery by not answering the question? :D

Maybe I *am* an international man of mystery after all.

7x57

It depends on how many words not answering would contain. :p

Man, it feels good to tease someone for talking a lot instead of being on the receiving end of it.

Meplat
01-22-2010, 2:22 AM
This is another one we often confuse. Most unions are corporations when you get down to it, some are not. Many have non-corporate avenues that can support political causes, but those are just like any other PAC or legislative action or lobbying group.

I'm sure the NRA has a corporate division somewhere with tons of money they wish they could dump on politics. I believe it must be used through the NRA-ILA though, which is a separate wing of the organization and its primary front in the courts and in politics.

Agreed that this is bad juju...don't know what this means for gun rights but I have a feeling this is not good news for anyone, right-left-center, libertarian-authoritarian, and everything in between. Well except for corporations.

It does not sound like you are very familiar with the real world inner workings of unions. If you have the money you can figure a way around any law.

I have been a member of two unions in my life. I am actually collecting a pension from one. I could tell you stories about union inner politics that would curl your hair. Suffice it to say, the union “mob” connection is not a myth. Later in life when I was fed up with my unions’ support of anti-gun politicos I went through the very onerous process of demanding that the portion of my dues that were used for political purposes be returned to me. Out of several hundred dollars of dues paid that year I got back a check fore one dollar and fifty six cents! If you believe that is all of your dues that go to politics I have a castle in Ireland to sell you.

I think honest grass roots organizations like NRA and ACL-Uck are the big winners here. If you think that any law can keep the truly filthy rich from converting their money to political power, that castle just went on sale! And ACORN is using its millions in federal grants for encouraging apolitical non-partisan voter registration.

Meplat
01-22-2010, 2:35 AM
show me a corporation that can be drafted to fight, or serve on a jury



ok-let me clarify what i mean by corporation, FOR PROFIT ENTITIES

Their resources and members can.

One example is American flagged merchant ships.

Meplat
01-22-2010, 2:49 AM
so what- is that when you allow corporations to control the spread of information you end up with 1 million voices being drowned out by a handful of extremely well funded voices


Like CBS, NBC, & ABC?:rolleyes:


its how we end up with presidents like Obama, noone had heard of him prior to the start of election season, but a handful of people spread the information about how great a canditate he was, and whala, all of a sudden he's all you see on tv and the people vote for him

Exactly!






2 people have as much a right to associate as 2 million, but the asscoiation of 2 shouldn't be given the louder voice

how many people contributed to Ron Pauls Campaign vs say....Guiliani, who got more airtime..............theres your problem right there

Kharn
01-22-2010, 4:17 AM
I don't believe in coincidence.
Then there is the timing of the release of this decision - roughly halfway between merits briefs and orals in McDonald.I wouldn't read that into it, the decision totals 183 pages, that is a lot of editing, rewriting, etc. They released it two days after the last special election before the 2010 primaries, imagine the mess it would have created to release it two weeks before the MA senate election. :eek:

navyinrwanda
01-22-2010, 4:24 AM
My gosh, of course corporations aren't human beings. But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. And those human beings have rights, whether they choose to exercise those rights as individuals or collectively as a corporation.

Ilya Somin wrote (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/) quite a bit on this topic yesterday at the Volokh Conspiracy. He went on to explain (http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/corporate-rights-and-property-rights-are-human-rights-why-its-a-mistake-to-conflate-a-right-with-the-means-used-to-exercise-it/) why it's a mistake to confuse the the means used to exercise a right with the actual right:


It’s true, of course, that a corporation is not a person. But the people who own and operate it are. “Corporate speech” is really just speech by people using the corporate form.

The mistake here is one we see in other contexts. Critics often denigrate rights by conflating them with the means used to exercise them. For example, a standard rhetorical attack on property rights is the claim that property rights aren’t really “human rights.” Property has no rights, it is said. Its true of course that property as such is not entitled to any rights. However, property rights actually belong to the people who own the property, not the physical objects themselves. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1972 decision in Lynch v. Household Financial Corporation (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16381773738696239370):


[T]he dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a “personal” right... In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.


When I criticize decisions like Kelo v. City of New London (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874865), the objection is not that government has violated the rights of land or buildings, but those of the people who own them.

This rhetorical tactic is most often used by liberals and leftists to criticize rights advocated by conservatives and libertarians. However, it’s important to understand that the same ploy can easily be turned on rights favored by the political left. Consider, for instance, the right to use contraceptives upheld by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979). Contraceptives, after all, have no rights. They are inanimate physical objects, like any other property. Under the Connecticut law banning their use, women were still free to avoid pregnancy (e.g. — by abstaining from sex, or by using the rhythm method). They just couldn’t use this particular type of property to do it. It’s easy to see that any such critique of Griswold would be specious. After all, contraceptives are just a means that women use to exercise their rights to reproductive choice, albeit a particularly effective one.

The same point applies to corporate speech and property rights. When corporations “speak,” they are just a means that individuals use to exercise their rights of free speech — often a more effective means than the available alternatives. And just as the right protected in Griswold actually was a human right rather than a right belonging to the contraceptives, property rights are rights of human owners, not rights belonging to tracts of land or objects.

Abjuring this common rhetorical tactic doesn’t by itself resolve longstanding debates over the scope and content of human rights. You can still attack property rights or corporate free speech rights on other grounds. But it does help focus the discussion on real issues and reduce rhetorical distractions.



Of course, “property” or “contraceptives” could easily be replaced with “guns.”

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 6:15 AM
show me a corporation that can be drafted to fight, or serve on a jury



ok-let me clarify what i mean by corporation, FOR PROFIT ENTITIES

This one strikes me as unusually silly. Hawk, I don't think you thought about it before you posted it - 'cuz you're smarter than this.

Think back to WW2 when businesses were effectively drafted to supply war material. KBR is in lots of combat zones today. And, we don't have a draft which means no one can be drafted.

Also, there are lots of people who don't do jury duty for one reason or another (physical disability) so they shouldn't be allowed to be heard?

Going a bit further, every one of us who works does so for a profit. So every employed individual is a for-profit entity and should not be heard?

So using your logic it would seem that the only ones who should be able to donate/be heard in politics would be - no one! (Well, presumably you'd still let the politicians confiscate our money and use it to promote their own interests in the media and elsewhere).

davescz
01-22-2010, 7:03 AM
I agree with this sentiment, however, until a corporation can be jailed for malfeasance - I fear that this decision will have a negative effect. Not so much that the NRA or ACLU can fund candidates' campaigns, but that Bechtel, Roche, or Halliburton can - with resources far beond the reach of any citizen's group.

companies lobbying politicans may not be the best thing, but is the symptom , NOT the cause. Let me explain:

the lobbyist only psends money and time on a politican that can grant or vote for favors of some sort to benifit the company, that is the only reason why it is done. The Founding fathers were smart and greatly limited the role of government. however that limited role of government has been preverted, and now the politicans control way too much. Hence the politicans have huge power. they tax at a rate near 50%, they regulate near every aspect of doing business, they wirte tax codes with all kinds of perks for certain groups, they run the national retirement system, regulate CO2, how many mpg a car gets, how much engergy your TV consumes, etc... the governmnet has now got its dirty hands in just about everything.
This is the probelm, whent eh governmnt is in the position to grrant favors, when the government can crush your company, or your competetors company with a tax or rule change, you bet their is going to be lobby groups, bribes etc... the probellm is that government is too powerful, that is what breeds corruption. that is why laws like the McCains contributuion limits do not wrok, there is such a huge demand for lobbyiest becuase government is so influential that no laws can stop it. yes they can ban contributions by companies, yet congress is still being bought off (recall the congress man with the ice cold cash in his freezer???)
this is a consiquence of government getting into things they have no buissines nor right to do, that is why influence money works.

if govenemenbt would stay out of reguilating and taxing every aspect of life, there would be no concern about lobbyiests of companies donating money, as it would result in no benifit to the donor.

do you realy think fords hands should be tied and they should not be allowed to try to influence the government? well I tell you I f I was a Ford CEO I would be doing everything I can to lobby govenrment, becuase govenremnt now owns Fords major domestic competitor. this is just one example of were government has gone beyond its Constitutional limits and a company has to lobby for favorable treatment, just to stay alive.

This is why political finacne reform will NEVER work. the government has its hands in too many things, the govenrment has become ALL powerful, hence that breeds corruption and pay offs. The ONLY way to remove corruption and donor influence is to eliminate the Un-Consititutional actions of the government. If you eliminate teh huge influence of govenrement, then no one would bather to lobby on the behalf of corportations, as there would be no favors that the politicans could grant.

i am aginst lobbyist reform, I am all for limiting the role of governemnt, and if we can limit the role of government, then the lobbyist influence thing will disappear overnight.

dont fall for reforms like McCain / Finegold, instead we must demand that govenrment stick to what the CDonstitution allows it to do, and no more, that will solve any lobbyists/ influnece issues.

shooting4life
01-22-2010, 10:23 AM
Best post of the day imho, just have to get through grammar.


companies lobbying politicans may not be the best thing, but is the symptom , NOT the cause. Let me explain:

the lobbyist only psends money and time on a politican that can grant or vote for favors of some sort to benifit the company, that is the only reason why it is done. The Founding fathers were smart and greatly limited the role of government. however that limited role of government has been preverted, and now the politicans control way too much. Hence the politicans have huge power. they tax at a rate near 50%, they regulate near every aspect of doing business, they wirte tax codes with all kinds of perks for certain groups, they run the national retirement system, regulate CO2, how many mpg a car gets, how much engergy your TV consumes, etc... the governmnet has now got its dirty hands in just about everything.
This is the probelm, whent eh governmnt is in the position to grrant favors, when the government can crush your company, or your competetors company with a tax or rule change, you bet their is going to be lobby groups, bribes etc... the probellm is that government is too powerful, that is what breeds corruption. that is why laws like the McCains contributuion limits do not wrok, there is such a huge demand for lobbyiest becuase government is so influential that no laws can stop it. yes they can ban contributions by companies, yet congress is still being bought off (recall the congress man with the ice cold cash in his freezer???)
this is a consiquence of government getting into things they have no buissines nor right to do, that is why influence money works.

if govenemenbt would stay out of reguilating and taxing every aspect of life, there would be no concern about lobbyiests of companies donating money, as it would result in no benifit to the donor.

do you realy think fords hands should be tied and they should not be allowed to try to influence the government? well I tell you I f I was a Ford CEO I would be doing everything I can to lobby govenrment, becuase govenremnt now owns Fords major domestic competitor. this is just one example of were government has gone beyond its Constitutional limits and a company has to lobby for favorable treatment, just to stay alive.

This is why political finacne reform will NEVER work. the government has its hands in too many things, the govenrment has become ALL powerful, hence that breeds corruption and pay offs. The ONLY way to remove corruption and donor influence is to eliminate the Un-Consititutional actions of the government. If you eliminate teh huge influence of govenrement, then no one would bather to lobby on the behalf of corportations, as there would be no favors that the politicans could grant.

i am aginst lobbyist reform, I am all for limiting the role of governemnt, and if we can limit the role of government, then the lobbyist influence thing will disappear overnight.

dont fall for reforms like McCain / Finegold, instead we must demand that govenrment stick to what the CDonstitution allows it to do, and no more, that will solve any lobbyists/ influnece issues.

dantodd
01-22-2010, 10:33 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FascismFascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.

Yes. I wish people would quit misusing words like fascism. You can only be justified in calling government fascist if they were doing things like defining compensation plans for banks, or deciding who leads major corporations like GM are........

Oh, I guess maybe a grounding in what fascism really is might be instructive to hawk...

GrizzlyGuy
01-22-2010, 11:02 AM
companies lobbying politicans may not be the best thing, but is the symptom , NOT the cause. Let me explain:

Bingo! Had I seen this thread when I woke up this morning, I wouldn't have had to write this post over in Off Topic (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3682115&postcount=37) saying basically the same thing. :o

P.S. - For the skeptics, please consider some info from Cato Institute that I referenced here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3679252&postcount=22) (a short video) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3679480&postcount=25).

P.P.S. - Yes, this DOES bode well for McDonald (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3676263&postcount=3) :D

Glock21sfsd
01-22-2010, 11:23 AM
For many employees who have no choice in whether or not they have to be union members paying union dues. You want this job...you will be a union member. You will fund the democratic political machine whether or not you agree with it. Sounds a lot like control to me.

I know with my job, you can choose to be a union memeber or not but either way you pay, its about 36 dollars for fair share and 42 dollars for union members. So either way I am forced to support the union if I want to keep my job, which kind of sucks since I dont support any of the political values that the union does

madmike
01-22-2010, 1:03 PM
I usually stay out of these discussions, because I don't want to open my mouth and prove I'm a fool... but I want to comment on the animosity I keep seeing towards "big business, and rich people, and corporations"(not just here, but in the real world too).
All my life I can remember people being angrily jealous of anyone that had more, or better "stuff" than them(this must be human nature, see the "Bolshevik Uprising"). More recently the talk of "windfall profit taxes" has caught my attention, and it bothers me. I can only guess that it comes from the slow subconscious adoption of socialist/communist ideals in this country.

People should have an equal CHANCE to achieve/acquire/excel. That doesn't mean that we should all have the same possessions, and the same jobs, and the same house, etc(We've had the chance to see how that all works out)... . If you don't like your job, go back to school and get a degree in something you'll like better. If you wish you had a nice car like your neighbor, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to have one, it means you need to save your money and buy your own. A lot of you have much bigger and nicer gun collections than I do, and while I wish that I had some of the nifty things I see here, I choose instead to put a roof over my family's heads, and work at a job I like(even though it will never make me rich). I don't get angry at you for having more cool toys than I do. I don't get mad that Chevron made a profit, or that my boss drives a nice car. I want Chevron to make a profit, and I want my boss to do well, so some of my gas money stays in the US, and so I can keep my job that I like, and not have to work someplace mind numbingly boring. I guess I'm just trying to say it's OK to be successful, even if you're more successful than me.

Sorry for the sloppy rant.

-madmike.

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 1:24 PM
My gosh, of course corporations aren't human beings. But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. And those human beings have rights, whether they choose to exercise those rights as individuals or collectively as a corporation.


Okay.

If a corporation can exercise the same rights that individuals can exercise, do you not also agree, then, that corporations should be subject to the same penalties for violating the law that individuals are? That corporations should be subject to arrest (temporary shutdown), jail (semi-permanent shutdown) or perhaps even the death penalty (permanent shutdown)? That if it cannot make bail, then it should be shut down (jailed) until completion of the trial, and that if it can make bail it will nevertheless be subject to the same basic restrictions that are applied to individuals?

If you want corporations to have equal footing with individuals then it should be truly equal. As things stand right now, corporations have the rights of individuals but not are not subject to the penalties that individuals are. Which is to say, as things are right now, corporations are "more equal" than individuals.

When a corporation violates a law, at most it is subject to fines, whereas individuals are arrested, jailed, and sometimes even executed.

I agree that the same rights should be applied to all. But the laws, too, should be applied to all in the same way (to the maximum degree possible).

If an individual is limited by law to contributing no more than $5000 to a politician's campaign, then a single corporation should limited in exactly the same way, and subject to exactly the same penalty as an individual if it violates that law.

IGOTDIRT4U
01-22-2010, 1:30 PM
Food for thought, by John Stossel.

"
Jan. 18, 2006: Democrats sign pledge to clean up tainted relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists.
"When you walk into my administration, you will not be able to work on regulations or contracts directly related to your former employer for two years. And when you leave, you will not be able to lobby the administration throughout the remainder of my term in office."

Candidate Barack Obama, June 22, 2007

Obama’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric was a big part of the promised “change” that made so much of the public and the media swoon. But at a time of 10 percent unemployment, Roll Call reports that opportunities for DC's lobbyists grow like, well, parasites.

“K Street’s top 25 firms cashed in on the aggressive legislative agenda unleashed by the new president and bigger Democratic majorities in Congress in 2009 to post double-digit growth of about 10 percent over the previous year...”

The Podesta Group, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Holland & Knight and Alston & Bird all reported more than 40 percent increases in billings. K&L Gates, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti and McBee Strategic Consulting posted gains of more than 20 percent in 2009.

DC is the paradise where lobbyists run free. Even Huffington Post Lefties have a problem with that.

“The corporate giants that command an army of well-paid lobbyists still seem to get what they want out of President Obama and Congress at the expense of the American people.”

What do they expect? Activist government is a breeding ground for parasites. I blogged about the IT executive who explained why he must go to Washington: "When you have a baby with an Uzi, right, they might accidentally mow you down.” Read more.

Ed Morrissey writes that lobbyists are nothing more than a symptom, not the disease itself:

“What’s the disease? Massive federal government and power. If we really want to limit the reach of lobbyists, we need to limit government and curtail its spending. That’s why the Obama administration isn’t the scourge of the lobbying industry... In a bad economy, its industry grew at roughly half of the rate of the increase in federal spending, and that’s neither coincidence nor an accident.” "

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/22/babies-with-uzis/

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 1:33 PM
Nonsense. You are blinded by socialist rhetoric. If the NRA can't spend the money I send them to lobby for the rights I ask them to protect, then it violates not only my First Amendment right to speak through an organization of my choosing but also, possibly, something related to my right of free association and peaceable assembly for redress of grievances. Because I certainly assemble, in virtual fashion, with several million other gun owners in the NRA and I certainly do expect them to fight like pit bulls for the redress of certain long-standing grievances.

One of the purposes of demonizing "corporations" is to blind you to the fact that the government is controlling who can speak. That's a positive feedback loop that by itself can destroy the Republic.

I'm waiting to find out whether this shoots the liberal fascist's dream of reinstating the fairness doctrine in the head.

7x57


7x57, you of all people should know the position of the founders of this country on corporations, and that when the country was founded, they had a significant fear of corporate power, seeing how they fought the revolution in large part as a result of the abuses they suffered at the hands of the East India Company. And that as a result, they intentionally limited the power and scope of corporations for quite some time.

I find it astonishing that you of all people would argue against their sensibilities.

putput
01-22-2010, 2:34 PM
Musings that are off topic and not based in any fact...

Now any sales tax is unconstitutional since a constitutional right can’t be taxed and my buying a product (soap, stock, etc) is essentially free speech in support of a corporation that is then going to use the money from the profit of my sale to exercise free speech in the form of an advertisement for their product that mentions a candidate which I support. Of coarse advertisements that happen to mention a candidate are a business expense so the company should be able to write that off their taxes and with a lower tax burden, they should be able to pay me more! Now of coarse any day that I just don’t want to work, I can call in a “free speech day” since I disagree with the corporate position on an issue and I don’t want the profit made through my efforts to go to a commercial that just happens to mention a candidate that has a position that I just can’t support. Of coarse I’ll still get paid or I can sue the company for violating my civil rights!

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 3:10 PM
7x57, you of all people should know the position of the founders of this country on corporations, and that when the country was founded, they had a significant fear of corporate power, seeing how they fought the revolution in large part as a result of the abuses they suffered at the hands of the East India Company. And that as a result, they intentionally limited the power and scope of corporations for quite some time.

I find it astonishing that you of all people would argue against their sensibilities.

Huh? The East India Company had to follow the rules of the Crown - and they favored certain companies and policies. And the Company did not impose the taxes which were so vexing. . .

But there is another point. Remember who signed the Declaration of Independence so boldly? IIRC, it was John Hancock - who was filthy rich by any standard of the day. The American Revolution could actually be construed as being construed as a vying for a commercial advantage for the colonies - but definitely anti-Crown rather than anti-Corporation.

And the Constitution was significantly designed to keep the Feds out of business - which is why they were only to regulate interstate commerce (which has morphed into anything they please - including regulating how much you flush through your toilet).

The idea that John Hancock and his buds were anti-Corporate is actually pretty ridiculous.

drutledge79
01-22-2010, 3:31 PM
Question: After all this talk I am wondering what ya'll consider powers the goverment *should* have?

I feel like such a light-weight amongst ya'll but still... Here's a leftist concern for you: the environment. Mega-Corp XYZ makes super-widgets and in the process dumps all sorts of toxic crap into the river by their processing plant.

Now I hear people saying they don't want the government "meddling" in the free market or "regulating how much you flush through your toilet." That's fine, but who is going to keep Mega-Corp (or even farmer Bob) from ruining a large natural resource in the interest of.. p..p.. Profit? :chris:

I can't believe that the free market would take care of that. So someone regulates who has the interest of the "people" at heart. The government (supposedly). Now they are making regulations on how much you can pollute and what can go where and all of a sudden corporations are buying favors from politicians. I see the problem but I don't see a solution. Enlighten me.

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 3:43 PM
The idea that John Hancock and his buds were anti-Corporate is actually pretty ridiculous.

Really?

Then explain why at that time, corporate charters were granted grudgingly, and failure to abide by the charter was routinely used to terminate the charter of the company in question?


You state that the founders of the country drew up the Constitution to keep the federal government out of business, and you are correct about that. But you assume that, because they drew up the Constitution that way, that they had no problems with corporate power. That's not so.

The founders and their compatriots regulated corporations through the states. They knew that they didn't need to get the federal government involved in such a thing and, in fact, they were at least as afraid of federal government power as they were corporate power. The ability to regulate and control is power in and of itself, so the founders wisely attempted to limit federal power only to those things for which it was absolutely necessary.


This page seems to have a good overview of what went on at the time with respect to corporations: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html


What many of you seem to fail to understand is that the government and corporations do not stand apart. They never have and they never will. They simply can't as long as economic power (which corporations wield) and political power (which the government wields, and also which is used to influence the government) are in any way connected. The founders of this country understood that. It's why they enacted checks against the power of both the federal government (through the Constitution) and corporations (through state law).

hoffmang
01-22-2010, 3:46 PM
Arthur Andersen was indicted on a felony, convicted, and was destroyed by the US Government before the conviction was overturned by a higher court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Enron_scandal
On June 15, 2002, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron, resulting in the Enron scandal. Nancy Temple (Andersen Legal Dept.) and David Duncan (Lead Partner for the Enron account) were cited as the responsible managers in this scandal as they had given the order to shred relevant documents. Since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not allow convicted felons to audit public companies, the firm agreed to surrender its CPA licenses and its right to practice before the SEC on August 31, 2002 - effectively putting the firm out of business in the U.S. Meanwhile, Andersen's non-U.S. practices ceased to be viable due to reputational collateral damage. Most of them were taken over by the local firms of the other major international accounting firms.

The Andersen indictment also put a spotlight on its faulty audits of other companies, most notably Waste Management, Sunbeam and WorldCom. The subsequent bankruptcy of WorldCom, which quickly surpassed Enron as the biggest bankruptcy in history, led to a domino effect of accounting and like corporate scandals that continue to tarnish American business practices.

On May 31, 2005, in the case Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reversed Andersen's conviction due to what it saw as serious flaws in the jury instructions.[4] In the court's view, the instructions were far too vague to allow a jury to find obstruction of justice had really occurred. The court found that the instructions were worded in such a way that Andersen could have been convicted without any proof that the firm knew it had broken the law or that there had been a link to any official proceeding that prohibited the destruction of documents. The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was also highly skeptical of the government's concept of "corrupt persuasion"—persuading someone to engage in an act with an improper purpose even without knowing an act is unlawful.

-Gene

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 3:49 PM
Actually, if the government simply shone the light of day on things it would take care of the matter. . .

If the government tracks abuse of our environment and simply lets us know that Corporation XYZ is wantonly polluting I don't think any of us would buy from them.

Also, some of us would start selling a service where we would certify various corporations as being eco-friendly and/or color-blind and/or disabilities-friendly. And I ask you, if you had the choice of a store which displayed a placard (from a trusted organization) saying that they don't care what your skin color is, that they strive to reduce packaging waste and other pollution, and that they don't care what God/god you worship or with whom you sleep - or a store which didn't have that certification? Which place would you be buying from?

Also, if they pollute the water I'm drinking, then I can sue them, right?

I don't trust corporations - but if you trust your government more, then you're a fool.

Oh, and I spent time with people who were in charge of monitoring company's environmental practices. They freely admitted that some of what they were doing was silly at best.

One other thing. The worst polluters on Earth have been the countries where the government owned the corporations.

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 3:50 PM
I feel like such a light-weight amongst ya'll but still... Here's a leftist concern for you: the environment. Mega-Corp XYZ makes super-widgets and in the process dumps all sorts of toxic crap into the river by their processing plant.

Now I hear people saying they don't want the government "meddling" in the free market or "regulating how much you flush through your toilet." That's fine, but who is going to keep Mega-Corp (or even farmer Bob) from ruining a large natural resource in the interest of.. p..p.. Profit? :chris:


The above could be handled through property rights. To wit: if the processing plant dumps a bunch of toxins into the river, and those toxins migrate to my property, then that is the same as if the plant dumped the toxins directly onto my land, and I have a legitimate claim against them.

The owners of the plant have the right to do whatever they want to their land, as long as what they do stays on their land. Once it moves beyond the boundaries of their land, it is the same as if they were taking action on someone else's property, which is something that can only be done with permission.

The same reasoning can be used with respect to pollution of the air.

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 3:52 PM
Really?

Then explain why at that time, corporate charters were granted grudgingly, and failure to abide by the charter was routinely used to terminate the charter of the company in question?


You state that the founders of the country drew up the Constitution to keep the federal government out of business, and you are correct about that. But you assume that, because they drew up the Constitution that way, that they had no problems with corporate power. That's not so.

The founders and their compatriots regulated corporations through the states. They knew that they didn't need to get the federal government involved in such a thing and, in fact, they were at least as afraid of federal government power as they were corporate power. The ability to regulate and control is power in and of itself, so the founders wisely attempted to limit federal power only to those things for which it was absolutely necessary.


This page seems to have a good overview of what went on at the time with respect to corporations: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html


What many of you seem to fail to understand is that the government and corporations do not stand apart. They never have and they never will. They simply can't as long as economic power (which corporations wield) and political power (which the government wields, and also which is used to influence the government) are in any way connected. The founders of this country understood that. It's why they enacted checks against the power of both the federal government (through the Constitution) and corporations (through state law).

Oh, don't get me wrong, I didn't think that there was ultimate faith in corporations. But to a large extent it was a concern to them when corporations started to take on the powers of a/the State.

And they terminated charters when they were violated? That just makes sense. . .

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 3:53 PM
Actually, if the government simply shone the light of day on things it would take care of the matter. . .

If the government tracks abuse of our environment and simply lets us know that Corporation XYZ is wantonly polluting I don't think any of us would buy from them.


You put far too much faith in the discerning nature of the buyer. Experience and observation both show without question that most buyers will buy on price alone. They don't care where a product comes from, nor do they care what it took to produce it. And they especially don't care about the quality of the product.

If dumping toxins into the environment gives a producer a significant price advantage, most buyers will buy from that producer, and the only exception is if they are directly and obviously impacted by the behavior of the producer.


I basically agree with the rest of what you said, though.

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 3:57 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong, I didn't think that there was ultimate faith in corporations. But to a large extent it was a concern to them when corporations started to take on the powers of a/the State.

And they terminated charters when they were violated? That just makes sense. . .

Yeah. Charters were also granted on a limited time basis, and corporations were severely limited in what they could do. Many things were forbidden to them, included making political contributions and spending money on lobbying -- exactly the subject we're talking about in this thread.

So it's not enough just to say that there wasn't ultimate faith in corporations on the part of the founders. There was immense distrust on their part, and they expressed that distrust by severely limiting the scope, abilities, and life of corporations at the time.

zum
01-22-2010, 4:06 PM
i cant wait till Chevron, Texaco, and shell lobby's their m00la $$ to throw out this special blend crap we call gas in California and bring in regular 93 octane (special CA blend is the reason we pay more then the rest of the nation)

then the auto manufactures when they lobby there shorts off to getting rid of all these ridiculous carb emissions BS (regulation which hurt the middle class)

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeahoooooo :party:

YEA i know... im dreaming :stuart:

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 4:13 PM
kcbrown:

Now we're starting to significantly agree.

My personal opinion is that the only entity that should be able to donate to a political party or candidate should be an adult citizen who is registered to vote. Also, no corporation, union, or other entity should be able to provide in-kind services as is common with unions today.

But limiting free speech is a different thing. You pretty much have to allow corporate entities to say what they want and how they want unless you want to let the government be in charge of determining what is acceptable speech (and there lies disaster).

But then, I think that any political advertisement should identify who is paying for it: If a union another corporate entity contributed to paying for an ad I think that should be made crystal clear in the ad. There should be no hiding behind a firewall of an entity created largely to shield others from responsibility.

Don't ask me whether this would all be Constitutional. I'm saying what I want - not what is or will be. And it won't be like that because the politicians would rather start slaughtering the population than to allow that kind of change.

hawk84
01-22-2010, 4:14 PM
The same people that cry foul when Eminint Domain is used to take private property to further the economic goals of a few, clap loudly when those few are given more control over government by allowing them "as corporations" to buy politicians that will hand out favors to the economic interests that got them elected

the new declaration of independence you desire

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Corporations are richer then mere men, that they are endowed by their wealth with the ability to buy governments, That individual Rights are a hinderence to their profits, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to deny these rights, Governments must be purchased, deriving their unjust powers from the corrupt politicians, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Corporation to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Profit Margins. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed quickly because all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

hawk84
01-22-2010, 4:27 PM
i cant wait till Chevron, Texaco, and shell lobby's their m00la $$ to throw out this special blend crap we call gas in California and bring in regular 93 octane (special CA blend is the reason we pay more then the rest of the nation)

then the auto manufactures when they lobby there shorts off to getting rid of all these ridiculous carb emissions BS (regulation which hurt the middle class)

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeahoooooo :party:

YEA i know... im dreaming :stuart:

one need only look at how much cleaner the air is today compared to 15 years ago when there were LESS cars on the road to see that CARB is not BS

drops in the rate of asthma can be directly related to the laws that were passed to keep our air clean

but yes....paying at extra to avoid expensive debilitating health conditions hurts the middle class

coincidently I do contract work for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco, Tesoro....why do you want 93 octane? just to pay more and piss away your money, unless your car NEEDS 93 octane it does absolutely nothing for you, it doesn't extend the life of your car, it doesn't give you more power, it doesnt give you better gas mileage

there is NO difference between the gas you can buy at arco,thrift etc for 2.83 a gallon and the gas you can buy across the street at Exxon, or Shell, or Chevron for 3.09, clever marketing is all it is. and you can thank CARB for the fact that it is all the same by requiring gas to burn clean, but you probably continue to piss away your money buying their marketing bull****, while complaining that someone that merely wants to breath clean air is trying to take something out of your pocket

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 4:31 PM
The same people that cry foul when Eminint Domain is used to take private property to further the economic goals of a few, clap loudly when those few are given more control over government by allowing them "as corporations" to buy politicians that will hand out favors to the economic interests that got them elected

the new declaration of independence you desire

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Corporations are richer then mere men, that they are endowed by their wealth with the ability to buy governments, That individual Rights are a hinderence to their profits, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to deny these rights, Governments must be purchased, deriving their unjust powers from the corrupt politicians, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Corporation to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Profit Margins. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed quickly because all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

Nope. I don't want corporations donating to political entities. I am irritated by their lobbyists.

But the main problem isn't the corporations. They have their lobbyists and are in bed with the politicians because the politicians want it that way.

Politicians are not required to meet with a single lobbyist ever. The politicians aren't required to accept any money or trips or anything else from the corporations ever.

The politicians are the ones who are supposed to be serving our interests - not the corporations. So if we're gonna get ticked off at someone, why not get ticked off at the ones who are betraying us, the politicians.

As an illustration? In my kind of work it is common to meet with representatives of multiple suppliers of goods to the people I serve. It is also common to get goodies from them. I simply don't meet with them and the people I serve needn't worry that I'm unduly influenced by the reps - because I choose not to meet with them. The reps/lobbyists aren't a problem because I don't let them be a problem. We should expect similar ethics from our politicians (I say similar because sometimes lobbyists are necessary).

hawk84
01-22-2010, 4:32 PM
Okay.

If a corporation can exercise the same rights that individuals can exercise, do you not also agree, then, that corporations should be subject to the same penalties for violating the law that individuals are? That corporations should be subject to arrest (temporary shutdown), jail (semi-permanent shutdown) or perhaps even the death penalty (permanent shutdown)? That if it cannot make bail, then it should be shut down (jailed) until completion of the trial, and that if it can make bail it will nevertheless be subject to the same basic restrictions that are applied to individuals?

If you want corporations to have equal footing with individuals then it should be truly equal. As things stand right now, corporations have the rights of individuals but not are not subject to the penalties that individuals are. Which is to say, as things are right now, corporations are "more equal" than individuals.

When a corporation violates a law, at most it is subject to fines, whereas individuals are arrested, jailed, and sometimes even executed.

I agree that the same rights should be applied to all. But the laws, too, should be applied to all in the same way (to the maximum degree possible).

If an individual is limited by law to contributing no more than $5000 to a politician's campaign, then a single corporation should limited in exactly the same way, and subject to exactly the same penalty as an individual if it violates that law.
ah- someone that gets it

the only way to make this work is to make the BOD personally accountable for the deeds carried out under them, you can't arrest and jail a corporation, but you can arrest and jail the people that make the decisions in that corporation, as it is now they are not accountable

ZombieTactics
01-22-2010, 4:33 PM
...
Corporations along the lines of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Haliburton, Microsoft, etc, are not lobbying the interests of MANY people, but a few people that want to use the government to further their profit margins ...
Actually each of these corporations represents thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of shareholders.

How is this different than labor unions who lobby on behalf of their (thousands to millions of) members to further their "profit margin"?

hawk84
01-22-2010, 4:42 PM
Nope. I don't want corporations donating to political entities. I am irritated by their lobbyists.

But the main problem isn't the corporations. They have their lobbyists and are in bed with the politicians because the politicians want it that way.

Politicians are not required to meet with a single lobbyist ever. The politicians aren't required to accept any money or trips or anything else from the corporations ever.

The politicians are the ones who are supposed to be serving our interests - not the corporations. So if we're gonna get ticked off at someone, why not get ticked off at the ones who are betraying us, the politicians.

As an illustration? In my kind of work it is common to meet with representatives of multiple suppliers of goods to the people I serve. It is also common to get goodies from them. I simply don't meet with them and the people I serve needn't worry that I'm unduly influenced by the reps - because I choose not to meet with them. The reps/lobbyists aren't a problem because I don't let them be a problem. We should expect similar ethics from our politicians (I say similar because sometimes lobbyists are necessary).

the politicians can't get where they are without corporate money, so while techinically they are not required to met with corporate lobbyiest, they will never get elected if they dont

now after this decision, it will be worse

there is nothing like getting a law passed that gives you a monopoly on business, or requires the equipment you sell

do you think Ruger or mossberg cared when CA state law said you had to buy a gun lock or a safe. they problably said "thanks" now they have to buy this useless crap

motorcycle helmet manufactures were all for requiring their product- and restricting your rights

the fact that it is practically a requirement that policticians meet with this lobbiest is exactly why if we want the politicians to represent US, that we have to limit how much corporations can give, if we dont, we are ASKING for them to be more corrupt and less loyal to "we the people"

OleCuss
01-22-2010, 4:59 PM
the politicians can't get where they are without corporate money, so while techinically they are not required to met with corporate lobbyiest, they will never get elected if they dont
.
.
.

I'm sorry, I don't think I get this one at all. A politician cares more about keeping or getting his/her position of power and money than in serving his/her electorate and you'll excuse them for that? If you excuse corruption then you are as corrupt as they are.

The corporation is supposed to answer to those who own it. If they do not, then the people who run it should be fired.

Our government is supposed to answer to those who elect it. If it does not, then the people who run it should be fired.

navyinrwanda
01-22-2010, 5:11 PM
Okay.

If a corporation can exercise the same rights that individuals can exercise, do you not also agree, then, that corporations should be subject to the same penalties for violating the law that individuals are? That corporations should be subject to arrest (temporary shutdown), jail (semi-permanent shutdown) or perhaps even the death penalty (permanent shutdown)? That if it cannot make bail, then it should be shut down (jailed) until completion of the trial, and that if it can make bail it will nevertheless be subject to the same basic restrictions that are applied to individuals?

If you want corporations to have equal footing with individuals then it should be truly equal. As things stand right now, corporations have the rights of individuals but not are not subject to the penalties that individuals are. Which is to say, as things are right now, corporations are "more equal" than individuals.

When a corporation violates a law, at most it is subject to fines, whereas individuals are arrested, jailed, and sometimes even executed.

I agree that the same rights should be applied to all. But the laws, too, should be applied to all in the same way (to the maximum degree possible).

If an individual is limited by law to contributing no more than $5000 to a politician's campaign, then a single corporation should limited in exactly the same way, and subject to exactly the same penalty as an individual if it violates that law.

No, corporations themselves do not have rights. Just like property or guns don't have rights, either.

Human beings have rights. And they exercise their rights to speak and assemble in multiple ways: as individuals, as sole proprietors, as partnerships, and as corporations.

And yes, corporations themselves have been penalized. Gene has already mentioned the Arthur Andersen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen) accounting firm, which was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), resulting in the Enron scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal). Although the conviction was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, Andersen nonetheless ceased to exist.

But what was the net effect of Andersen's prosecution and conviction? To put many thousands of innocent people out of work. It of course caused all of Andersen's partners to loose the value of their partnerships, so one might consider that an appropriate punishment. But again it was individuals who suffered — the corporation (or in Andersen's case, a limited liability partnership) was simply a form in which individuals organized themselves.

This is not to deny the influence of money on our political system. Of course great wealth can affect elected officials (and unelected ones, too). But confusing the organizational form that is used to wield influence with the influence itself completely misses the mark — and leaves the individuals who use their wealth to influence government free do as they please.

dfletcher
01-22-2010, 5:14 PM
Just curious with all this back & forth - who has actually read the opinion or a good part of it?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

I've read part of it and I learned that long ago SCOTUS stated a corporation has a right to speech (FNB v Bellotti). I also read Justice Scalia's comment that the 1st Amendment protects the act of speech, not the speaker, and he does not see gradations of who may engage in speech. I'm just a layman, but I agree - that a thing can be spoken is more important to me than who is speaking.

If I would like to watch "Hillary" the night before an election or read that Candidate Obama isn't a citizen or that John McCain is a Keating Five crook am I not afforded that opportunity? Am I to believe that my next door neighbor has the right to tell me any of those things but a nonprofit corporation may not? Am I not to be afforded the opportunity to make a decision, even if that decision may on occasion be wrong?

hawk84
01-22-2010, 5:52 PM
I'm sorry, I don't think I get this one at all. A politician cares more about keeping or getting his/her position of power and money than in serving his/her electorate and you'll excuse them for that? If you excuse corruption then you are as corrupt as they are.

The corporation is supposed to answer to those who own it. If they do not, then the people who run it should be fired.

Our government is supposed to answer to those who elect it. If it does not, then the people who run it should be fired.

so we vote a new person into office who we only get to see about because there is enough corporate money behind him to get his name out

its not that I excuse them for it, its merely that I recognize reality, if you want to stop politicians from being corrupt, you need to keep them seperate from corporate money, people don't bite the hand that feeds them, and if you allow the corporate hand to feed them, it will drown out contributions from "mere citizens", and that goes for both sides

Choptop
01-22-2010, 5:58 PM
Actually each of these corporations represents thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of shareholders.

How is this different than labor unions who lobby on behalf of their (thousands to millions of) members to further their "profit margin"?

Lobbying is different than campaigning.

CCWFacts
01-22-2010, 6:00 PM
Now if only they would also take a fresh look at Raich...

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 6:15 PM
No, corporations themselves do not have rights. Just like property or guns don't have rights, either.

Human beings have rights. And they exercise their rights to speak and assemble in multiple ways: as individuals, as sole proprietors, as partnerships, and as corporations.


If corporations themselves don't have rights then corporations don't have:


The right to own property
The right to free speech
The right to engage in commerce
The right to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure

etc.

And yet, a very large part of our legal structure is set up under the assumption that corporations are separate entities with those rights. When a corporation buys a piece of equipment, the equipment is registered as owned by the corporation, not by the individuals who currently own the corporation. When it places an ad, the ad is paid for by the corporation, not by one or more of the individuals who own it -- that is plain to see by examining the check. When one buys an item from a corporation, the money is paid to the corporation, not to the individuals who own it. When a corporation engages in legal action, it is the corporation itself, and not the individuals who own it, that is named in the action. Need I go on?

The entire point of a corporation is to act as a single entity that is individual and separate from the people who own, operate, and are employed by it.

So yes, a corporation has rights. More precisely, we as a society act as if corporations have rights, which is quite essentially the same thing.



If human beings are exercising their rights as individuals without the amplifying assistance of a corporation, then they should be treated at that point as the mere individuals they are acting as.
It simply will not do for corporate owners to reap the increased benefits of acting through the amplifying power of the corporation but not suffer any increased consequences for unlawfully doing the same. If you will not accept the notion that corporations themselves should be punished for the unlawful acts they commit, then you should at the very least accept the notion that the individual owners should, in total, suffer consequences multiplied by the ratio of the financial size of the corporation to the financial size of the average individual.



And yes, corporations themselves have been penalized. Gene has already mentioned the Arthur Andersen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen) accounting firm, which was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron), resulting in the Enron scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal). Although the conviction was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, Andersen nonetheless ceased to exist.
This is so exceedingly rare that it took a scandal of that magnitude in order for it to happen at all.



But what was the net effect of Andersen's prosecution and conviction? To put many thousands of innocent people out of work.
If you wish to avoid that as a possible outcome, your only other reasonable alternative is for the owners of the company at the time the crime was committed to be forced to serve jail time in direct proportion to the amount of the company they own, and to scale the total jail sentence up to reflect the size of the company as compared to the average individual (since the purpose of a corporation is to make money, the sensible way to do this is by examining the value of all the assets, liquid or otherwise, owned by the company in question and compare that with the total assets owned by the average individual). Even if the company is publicly traded.


The problem is that many people want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the benefits of corporate ownership without increased liability (indeed, many own corporations precisely to avoid liability that they as individuals would otherwise be exposed to). They want the rewards of owning a corporation and the leverage it brings but want no increased risk from it. Well, sorry, that is simply unacceptable. I have no problem with amplified good action receiving amplified reward, as long as amplified bad action receives amplified punishment. We have the former, but we do not have the latter. Again, that is unacceptable.


I do agree that ideally, the amount of influence each individual has on the government would be the same. I don't think that ideal has ever been achieved in the history of mankind. Economic influence has always been strongly related to political influence. We're better off recognizing that fact and dealing with it as best as we can.

wash
01-22-2010, 9:27 PM
My guess is that there will be two ways this will change things, negative political advertising and advertising on issues. Maybe there is more but these two seems most obvious.

Negative advertising means that corporations are going to start digging for dirt. The only way to survive it to be clean. Imagine that, honest politicians. It sounds great.

Advertising on issues seems pretty reasonable, I've got no problem with that.

I wonder why the democrats are so upset with that?

The one negative people might see is a candidate that always goes the way corporations want them to go but if the candidate got that reputation, I think the voters would vote them out.

I think this might have a negative impact in the short run before we can get rid of the corrupt politicians out there. In the long run I think it will be positive.

bulgron
01-23-2010, 12:27 AM
I wonder why the democrats are so upset with that?


I'm a little bit surprise by just how much my Democrat friends utterly hate this decision. They keep throwing around the word 'fascism'. Frankly, I think it's a complete over-reaction.

As far as I can tell, the real reason why they hate this decision is because it levels the playing field. Until now, they've enjoyed a huge advantage with the union money and George Soros' money. Now other entities can spend equally large.

7x57
01-23-2010, 7:57 AM
I'm a little bit surprise by just how much my Democrat friends utterly hate this decision. They keep throwing around the word 'fascism'. Frankly, I think it's a complete over-reaction.


I think it's because of Star Trek logic: anyone who isn't part of the state Socialist Federation is a Ferengi. :D The Ferengi is how they view America.

But seriously--philosophy matters. They've gotten the demonization of capitalism into the zeitgeist and it affects those who don't know whose voice is whispering in their ear. Notice how quite a few people on this thread believe that being sufficiently rich strips you of your rights?

The core issue to me isn't so much about who wins as to break the feedback loop where those who run the government get to pick who has the advantage in elections to decide who runs the government. The design of the system was to minimize feedback loops like that.

7x57

Al Norris
01-23-2010, 8:18 AM
I wouldn't read that [timing of the decision] into it, the decision totals 183 pages, that is a lot of editing, rewriting, etc.
I admit, I went overboard with that.

However, you simply can't read Stevens dissent and square that position with his vote in Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which plainly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZS.html), 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

Holding that the government cannot reach into the bedrooms of America, cannot be viewed as more important than protecting political speech. This is what Stevens is implicitly saying, however.

Kennedy, in writing for the majority, goes into some detail as to why Austin was wrongly decided (and McConnell which was largely based upon Austin). Kennedy attacks stare decisis in a logical and pragmatic manner.

C.J. Roberts entire separate concurrence was nothing more than an argument on why his statements to the Senate (during his conformation hearings) is consistent with his concurrence in this case to overturn Austin and McConnell, thereby dismissing stare decisis; as something the Court should always adhere to (Slaughter-House?).

To me, this appears to signal the idealogical battle lines over McDonald.

GrizzlyGuy
01-23-2010, 8:34 AM
I think it would behoove the folks who disagree with this decision to watch the short video below. It was produced way back in May, after the oral arguments were made at SCOTUS in March. Pay particular attention to the Q&A between Chief Justice Roberts and the government's lawyer (Malcolm Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General).

PeGlzEavpTM

Do we really want government to have the ability to ban books? I think not.

Maestro Pistolero
01-23-2010, 1:45 PM
EXCELLENT! That settles it for me. Long live the CATO institute.

7x57
01-23-2010, 2:16 PM
7x57, you of all people should know the position of the founders of this country on corporations, and that when the country was founded, they had a significant fear of corporate power, seeing how they fought the revolution in large part as a result of the abuses they suffered at the hands of the East India Company. And that as a result, they intentionally limited the power and scope of corporations for quite some time.

I find it astonishing that you of all people would argue against their sensibilities.

While I admit that the history of corporations is not an area I'm highly motivated to read up on, I believe you are missing some crucial contextual information. So far as I know, at the end of the eighteenth century:

1) Corporations required an act of the legislature to create. That means they're going to be rare, big and powerful, and require political patronage and influence simply to create.

2) Corporations were not the normal way of doing business, let alone all the many non-business things that we use corporate law for, in fact *require* corporate law for.

Consider therefore that there is no eighteenth century election law I am aware of that would require a group of like-minded individuals to incorporate in order to campaign collectively (and because I don't feel like reviewing election law just now, I stipulate that in what follows "require" includes cases where there might be a legal alternative that is not every bit as practical as forming a corporation). But when newer election law begins to make them necessary, it has now made speech contingent on them. So I doubt that any First Amendment issues arose in the founder's minds with respect to corporations--ordinary people didn't get the legislature to incorporate their organizations. But they certainly would not have tolerated abrogating the Right by the two-step process of first requiring incorporation to do certain activities and then regulating what corporations can say. IOW, I think current election law makes corporations very much a First Amendment issue in fundamental ways that did not exist at the founding. The government linked them, not us, we'd be happy to just say what we want and pool our money and voices when that's useful. The government claims the right to regulate how we do that, which means that either the Constitution is meaningless or those regulations themselves are now subject to the same judicial scrutiny as more obvious laws about political speech.

I don't think this is much different than Chicago and DC requiring handgun registration and then refusing to issue registrations, actually, and I'm sure you're not in favor of that end-run around the Constitution. That abrogates the right even though the Second Amendment doesn't spell out it's illegality explicitly.

7x57

7x57
01-23-2010, 2:22 PM
EXCELLENT! That settles it for me. Long live the CATO institute.

Well done indeed. Pointing out that there is no inherent exception for books and newspapers if the legislature doesn't want to make them is quite compelling.

7x57

hoffmang
01-23-2010, 5:53 PM
Is there not a soul in this thread who is a little suspicious of Congress' motives for passing a bi-partisan campaign finance bill? What do both parties who sit in existing seats have in common?

Incumbency.

Incumbents don't like to have their re-election challenged. This case was not about "corporations" it was about speech and being more able to pry out sclerotic politicians.

-Gene

dantodd
01-23-2010, 6:48 PM
The first reform we should implement is to force all elected officials to turn over their war chests after each election so they start out with zero money each election cycle. It won't kill incumbency apathy but it will help.

Al Norris
01-23-2010, 7:05 PM
Is there not a soul in this thread who is a little suspicious of Congress' motives for passing a bi-partisan campaign finance bill? What do both parties who sit in existing seats have in common?
Apparently very few, that are responding in this thread, remember what we called this legislation, when it was first being proposed: The Incumbent Protection Act.

That assumes they were even aware of the legislation in 2002.

GrizzlyGuy
01-23-2010, 7:38 PM
Apparently very few, that are responding in this thread, remember what we called this legislation, when it was first being proposed: The Incumbent Protection Act.

That assumes they were even aware of the legislation in 2002.

John Stossel was railing against it back in 2005 (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2005/11/02/the_incumbent_protection_act?page=1):

"I got elected. You may not criticize me."

OK, the incumbents don't put it that way. They say: "There's too much money in politics! We need campaign finance reform."

And they get it. "Reform" sounds good. McCain-Feingold and a host of state laws would protect us from the evil influence of big money.

But that's nonsense. When our behemoth government has the power to spend more than $2 trillion every year, big money will find a way to try to influence it. It's the little guys, who aren't in office, who are silenced by "reform."

McCain-Feingold makes it illegal for individual to buy an ad that names a candidate within 60 days of an election. "'Reformers' want elections to be the private preserve of the political class," snorted Ed Crane of the Cato Institute. He's right. And they're succeeding. They've gamed the system so nearly every incumbent is reelected...

7x57
01-23-2010, 8:48 PM
Is there not a soul in this thread who is a little suspicious of Congress' motives for passing a bi-partisan campaign finance bill?

It did not occur to me to doubt such a thing. I assume that is a priori true of any "reform" that manages to be passed, for precisely the reasons you state, and thought it was sort of implicit in pointing out the problem with asking congress to make rules about who wins.

I suppose in this case I'm still in "2A" mode and have my right to speak through the NRA at the forefront of my mind, especially on Calguns. I say different things when hanging around non-2A conservatives (of some kind or the other), as they don't view muzzling the NRA as such a catastrophe. :-)

But you can't repeat the point often enough for my money, and I'm sure you have a better grasp of the precise mechanics of how this affects elections than I do.

7x57

M. Sage
01-23-2010, 10:14 PM
Giving corporations rights that belong to individuals will be the the downfall of this republic

Okay.

If a corporation can exercise the same rights that individuals can exercise, do you not also agree, then, that corporations should be subject to the same penalties for violating the law that individuals are? That corporations should be subject to arrest (temporary shutdown), jail (semi-permanent shutdown) or perhaps even the death penalty (permanent shutdown)? That if it cannot make bail, then it should be shut down (jailed) until completion of the trial, and that if it can make bail it will nevertheless be subject to the same basic restrictions that are applied to individuals?

If you want corporations to have equal footing with individuals then it should be truly equal. As things stand right now, corporations have the rights of individuals but not are not subject to the penalties that individuals are. Which is to say, as things are right now, corporations are "more equal" than individuals.

When a corporation violates a law, at most it is subject to fines, whereas individuals are arrested, jailed, and sometimes even executed.

I agree that the same rights should be applied to all. But the laws, too, should be applied to all in the same way (to the maximum degree possible).

If an individual is limited by law to contributing no more than $5000 to a politician's campaign, then a single corporation should limited in exactly the same way, and subject to exactly the same penalty as an individual if it violates that law.

*Sigh* Have you read the First Amendment? It says nothing about "individuals" or even "people." It says (among other things) that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't matter whose speech it is abridging, or even if the speech is from a person or organization. Congress is barred from placing limits on speech, period. Transmission ends. Over and out. Got it?

i cant wait till Chevron, Texaco, and shell lobby's their m00la $$ to throw out this special blend crap we call gas in California and bring in regular 93 octane (special CA blend is the reason we pay more then the rest of the nation)

then the auto manufactures when they lobby there shorts off to getting rid of all these ridiculous carb emissions BS (regulation which hurt the middle class)

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeahoooooo :party:

YEA i know... im dreaming :stuart:

Dude, the fuel system problems I'd run into all the time in CA are non-issues here. I was talking to the other techs about all the Nissan fuel injectors I've replaced (the pintle-less injectors they used in the 2nd gen 300ZX and in a lot of the KA24DE-powered cars) and they laughed and said that they've hardly ever even heard of the problem outside of someone trying to do a fuel system clean on them. My Miata hated CA's fuel. The octane is not what's claimed. 89 is closer to 87 - my car would not stop pinging on "87" in CA, while in Michigan I could run 87 unless the temps got over 90 degrees and then I'd get some ping in stop and go. In CA I had ping all the time, even at 50 degrees on 87 octane.

CA's gas sucks.

Just curious with all this back & forth - who has actually read the opinion or a good part of it?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

I've read part of it and I learned that long ago SCOTUS stated a corporation has a right to speech (FNB v Bellotti). I also read Justice Scalia's comment that the 1st Amendment protects the act of speech, not the speaker, and he does not see gradations of who may engage in speech. I'm just a layman, but I agree - that a thing can be spoken is more important to me than who is speaking.

If I would like to watch "Hillary" the night before an election or read that Candidate Obama isn't a citizen or that John McCain is a Keating Five crook am I not afforded that opportunity? Am I to believe that my next door neighbor has the right to tell me any of those things but a nonprofit corporation may not? Am I not to be afforded the opportunity to make a decision, even if that decision may on occasion be wrong?

No, you're not wrong. You're right on target. There has to be a reason that the founders protected the freedom of speech, rather than the right of the people to speak freely.

Cali-V
01-23-2010, 11:07 PM
This ruling simply means, we must become much better at discerning fact from media hype... espacially when it comes to issues that require a vote.

Left, right, or center, for-profits will use their resources to enhance their shareholders perceived value...

M. Sage
01-23-2010, 11:50 PM
Left, right, or center, for-profits will use their resources to enhance their shareholders perceived value...

Ok, wait a second. Non-profits do the same thing, and "for-profits" are already doing it, too. We all do it, because we are all for profit, even so-called "non-profit" organizations.

Just because you don't make a monetary profit doesn't mean you don't profit.

You already need to be on your toes to distinguish fact from fiction in the media. What is any different today? The only difference I see is that the Supreme Court finally recognizes the true meaning of the First Amendment.

forgiven
01-24-2010, 1:01 AM
Did you guys see Obama acting like a whiny b..ch today? What a turd! The guy swore he would protect and uphold the Constitution. Oh, that's right, people of his ilk believe the document is a living breathing article subject to change on a whim.

Meplat
01-24-2010, 1:05 AM
I don't trust corporations - but if you trust your government more, then you're a fool.


Wisdom here.;)

Meplat
01-24-2010, 1:18 AM
More Kool-Aid please, and just leave the pitcher.:rolleyes:

one need only look at how much cleaner the air is today compared to 15 years ago when there were LESS cars on the road to see that CARB is not BS

drops in the rate of asthma can be directly related to the laws that were passed to keep our air clean

but yes....paying at extra to avoid expensive debilitating health conditions hurts the middle class

coincidently I do contract work for ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco, Tesoro....why do you want 93 octane? just to pay more and piss away your money, unless your car NEEDS 93 octane it does absolutely nothing for you, it doesn't extend the life of your car, it doesn't give you more power, it doesnt give you better gas mileage

there is NO difference between the gas you can buy at arco,thrift etc for 2.83 a gallon and the gas you can buy across the street at Exxon, or Shell, or Chevron for 3.09, clever marketing is all it is. and you can thank CARB for the fact that it is all the same by requiring gas to burn clean, but you probably continue to piss away your money buying their marketing bull****, while complaining that someone that merely wants to breath clean air is trying to take something out of your pocket

JohnJW
01-24-2010, 2:23 AM
Is there not a soul in this thread who is a little suspicious of Congress' motives for passing a bi-partisan campaign finance bill? What do both parties who sit in existing seats have in common?

Incumbency.

Incumbents don't like to have their re-election challenged. This case was not about "corporations" it was about speech and being more able to pry out sclerotic politicians.



I'm not too sure about the ills of campaign finance reform. My cynical side thinks what difference does it make since corporate lobbyists and the politicians already have a symbiotic relationship to the detriment of its public host, but do I really want to see more negative single issue bombardments during the election time obscuring the bigger picture for an already lazy electorate?

I read your earlier post on emusic's stance against RIAA, but looking at the constant out sourcing of US jobs over the last few decades I think the model citizen type corporations are the except not the rule. In the corporate world, for every Warren Buffet there's a Bernard Madoff and 10 Steve Ballmer type. Our sometimes draconian laws concerning consumer protects should serve as a reminder that our competitive for profit corporate culture is sometimes neither altruistic nor principled.

Viewing corporate free speech within the 2A context I also do not believe allowing corporations to directly influence the election through its vast concentration of wealth will benefit 2A causes. Most corporates except for ones associated with the firearms industry are at best apathetic toward 2A or any non-core business related political causes. With firearm owners being in the minority I'm afraid we are far less valuable as a consumer group than mothers with children. Having lived my early gun owning years in the 90's, the thought of "save the children" sends shivers down my spine. . .

Meplat
01-24-2010, 3:48 AM
companies lobbying politicans may not be the best thing, but is the symptom , NOT the cause. Let me explain:

the lobbyist only psends money and time on a politican that can grant or vote for favors of some sort to benifit the company, that is the only reason why it is done. The Founding fathers were smart and greatly limited the role of government. however that limited role of government has been preverted, and now the politicans control way too much. Hence the politicans have huge power. they tax at a rate near 50%, they regulate near every aspect of doing business, they wirte tax codes with all kinds of perks for certain groups, they run the national retirement system, regulate CO2, how many mpg a car gets, how much engergy your TV consumes, etc... the governmnet has now got its dirty hands in just about everything.
This is the probelm, whent eh governmnt is in the position to grrant favors, when the government can crush your company, or your competetors company with a tax or rule change, you bet their is going to be lobby groups, bribes etc... the probellm is that government is too powerful, that is what breeds corruption. that is why laws like the McCains contributuion limits do not wrok, there is such a huge demand for lobbyiest becuase government is so influential that no laws can stop it. yes they can ban contributions by companies, yet congress is still being bought off (recall the congress man with the ice cold cash in his freezer???)
this is a consiquence of government getting into things they have no buissines nor right to do, that is why influence money works.

if govenemenbt would stay out of reguilating and taxing every aspect of life, there would be no concern about lobbyiests of companies donating money, as it would result in no benifit to the donor.

do you realy think fords hands should be tied and they should not be allowed to try to influence the government? well I tell you I f I was a Ford CEO I would be doing everything I can to lobby govenrment, becuase govenremnt now owns Fords major domestic competitor. this is just one example of were government has gone beyond its Constitutional limits and a company has to lobby for favorable treatment, just to stay alive.

This is why political finacne reform will NEVER work. the government has its hands in too many things, the govenrment has become ALL powerful, hence that breeds corruption and pay offs. The ONLY way to remove corruption and donor influence is to eliminate the Un-Consititutional actions of the government. If you eliminate teh huge influence of govenrement, then no one would bather to lobby on the behalf of corportations, as there would be no favors that the politicans could grant.

i am aginst lobbyist reform, I am all for limiting the role of governemnt, and if we can limit the role of government, then the lobbyist influence thing will disappear overnig

dont fall for reforms like McCain / Finegold, instead we must demand that govenrment stick to what the CDonstitution allows it to do, and no more, that will solve any lobbyists/ influnece issues.

Here Here!!!

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 11:48 AM
I read your earlier post on emusic's stance against RIAA, but looking at the constant out sourcing of US jobs over the last few decades I think the model citizen type corporations are the except not the rule. In the corporate world, for every Warren Buffet there's a Bernard Madoff and 10 Steve Ballmer type. Our sometimes draconian laws concerning consumer protects should serve as a reminder that our competitive for profit corporate culture is sometimes neither altruistic nor principled.

However, the implication your heading for is that misbehaving interests should strip positive organizations of their voice.

Enough speech from the Skokie Nazis silences them and the ADL via government power?

I want Ballmer to keep speaking. Nothing is more effective at undermining Microsoft's brand!

-Gene

7x57
01-24-2010, 12:01 PM
I want Ballmer to keep speaking. Nothing is more effective at undermining Microsoft's brand!


This is a principle I've often advocated, though I didn't apply it to chair-throwing Microsoft execs. Sometimes the most useful thing one can do about really evil groups is nothing. Even *really* *really* evil groups--perhaps especially them.

Prime example: the KKK as an organization is probably a net positive. Why? People don't go away because you eliminate their front, they just hide better. The brand is, I think, irreparably damaged, so I do not fear anything from it that couldn't be done more effectively by people who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and act. Such marginal groups basically collect up some people and put them where they're easily identified and watched--generally just the stupider ones, but stupid people can hurt you too. I'd much rather them be where law enforcement and anyone else who thinks it worthwhile can keep them from doing harm (and probably half the current joke-that-is-the-KKK is probably undercover law enforcement anyway--I'd be surprised if they can plan much in secret).

The pity is really just that rope-a-dope isn't so effective for the most dangerous ones, but that's not an excuse to pick the low-hanging fruit.

Which all implies that freedom of speech and association work a lot better in actual practice than people fear, and that's sort of comforting since we bet the farm on them more than two hundred years ago.

The best counter argument is that they still find it easier to connect up into a critical mass even in a compromised public front organization. I suppose that's true, but a security of hoping the bad guys won't find each other seems to me to be approximately equivalent to security-through-obscurity, and that's not a recommended practice to depend on.

7x57

mblat
01-24-2010, 12:11 PM
IT is very simple, actually. Corporation(s) ALWAYS kill itself.
IBM, Microsoft, PanAm, General Motors - history is full of examples of "untouchable" corporation with "complete control" over market place. Eventually they all fizzle under their own weight and competition shows up and eats their lunch. You think Google is forever? Wait fifteen years - will see. Corporation will go away, eventually. There is always (almost) competing corporation to provide alternative point of view.

Governments on other hands.... well...... you got my drift.

I'll take Wall Street over Washington DC every day of the week. And twice during election season.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 1:21 PM
*Sigh* Have you read the First Amendment? It says nothing about "individuals" or even "people." It says (among other things) that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't matter whose speech it is abridging, or even if the speech is from a person or organization. Congress is barred from placing limits on speech, period. Transmission ends. Over and out. Got it?


You misunderstand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that corporations should have their speech restricted while the speech of others is not (at least, not when all other things are equal).

I'm saying that if we are to treat corporations the same as we do people, then we must do so with respect to the penalties of law just as we do with rights and privileges.

Right now, the only penalties of law corporations are typically subject to are financial in nature: fines and such. Individuals, on the other hand, are subject to seizure of property, incarceration, and even death.

I support rights for corporations equal to those of individuals only if corporations are subject to the same responsibilities and effects of penalties as individuals. Without the latter, corporations become more free than individuals, and that is simply unacceptable in a free society.

Note that I said "effects of penalties" in the above. There's an important reason for that. An individual who is fined $50k could easily go bankrupt -- $50k represents a large percentage of the average individual's worth. A large corporation which is fined the same $50k will pay it without even noticing. The fine is the same in both, but the effect is worlds apart. The purpose of penalties is to create a specific intended effect on the target. In the general case, I believe that the penalty against an individual or corporation needs to be tailored to create the intended effect against the target, no matter who or what the target is.


Finally, there is something very important that you and others need to consider: a corporation is an amoral entity. It has no feelings. It has no moral compass. It has no sense of ethical responsibility. It generally does not ask "what is the right thing to do" -- instead, it usually asks "what is the profitable thing to do". It does this because the people who are running it are insulated from the effects of their decisions by the corporation. That happens because the purpose of the corporation is to shield its owners and those they employ from personal liability, ostensibly in exchange for making it possible for those people to take on greater risk.

You should think very hard about the consequences to society of a bunch of amoral entities having a significant voice in the government.

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 1:26 PM
You do realize that corporations, especially public corporations, are subject to scrutiny as well as heightened penalties, both financial and criminal, unlike those of us in the "individual" private sector?

I'm not sure where we see a downside to amoral corporations that are balanced and checked by other amoral corporations, as well as the societal consensus of amoral individual citizens (who, by the way, must generally work towards "righteousness" as it's foreign to our nature also).

Hunt
01-24-2010, 1:41 PM
welcome to fascism, no stopping Monsanto from owning the planets food supply now.

*Sigh* Have you read the First Amendment? It says nothing about "individuals" or even "people." It says (among other things) that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't matter whose speech it is abridging, or even if the speech is from a person or organization. Congress is barred from placing limits on speech, period. Transmission ends. Over and out. Got it? I don't care how anyone spins it, I read the Bill of Rights intended for individual Natural Persons.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 2:38 PM
You do realize that corporations, especially public corporations, are subject to scrutiny as well as heightened penalties, both financial and criminal, unlike those of us in the "individual" private sector?


What laws cause corporations to be thrown in jail for years if not decades? Which ones cause the majority of their assets to be seized? What societal rules make it difficult, if not impossible, for a corporation to ever serve customers again (the equivalent of being employed) simply because they were found guilty of committing a crime at all?

I know of none. Perhaps you can enlighten me.



I'm not sure where we see a downside to amoral corporations that are balanced and checked by other amoral corporations, as well as the societal consensus of amoral individual citizens (who, by the way, must generally work towards "righteousness" as it's foreign to our nature also).Amoral corporations will balance other amoral corporations when it is to their advantage to do so. As regards government, they will refrain from doing so when it is to their mutual advantage (and will attempt to similarly refrain from doing so in the general case). Such advantages would be things like the penalties for breaking the law being significantly laxer in relative terms when applied to corporations than to individuals (this also tends to have the effect of causing those same laws to be harder on smaller companies than larger ones), and arranging laws such that a politician simply has no chance of winning an election without corporate backing.

You are aware that there are laws against monopolies and collusion for a reason, yes? These laws didn't arise out of the blue -- they were created in response to the real actions of real corporations.


Ultimately my point with respect to the fact that corporations are amoral is this: the government is intended to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Amoral influence yields amoral actions: actions that we as individuals would never consider because they're simply wrong. Now, you can argue that the government will engage in such things regardless because, as with corporations, people who act on behalf of the government are also shielded from personal liability, but having amoral entities substantially influence the government will at best not help, and will likely make that problem worse. Which is to say, the government responds to those who influence it, so if those who influence it do so with an ethical mindset, the government will more or less reflect that, whereas if those who influence it do so without an ethical mindset, the government will more or less reflect that, as well.

Increasing the amoral influence on government will almost surely increase the number and scope of the amoral actions taken by that government. It shouldn't take a genius to see that.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 2:41 PM
What laws cause corporations to be thrown in jail for years if not decades? Which ones cause the majority of their assets to be seized? What societal rules make it difficult, if not impossible, for a corporation to ever serve customers again (the equivalent of being employed) simply because they were found guilty of committing a crime at all?

I know of none. Perhaps you can enlighten me.


Are you intentionally ignoring the Arthur Anderson example I posted in this thread? The company was convicted of a criminal felony which barred it from performing audits of public companies. It went bankrupt.

Also for a moment you need to unwind "spending money does not equal speech." Do you think the 2A would allow the government to limit you to spending only $10 a year to buy a firearm?

-Gene

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 2:52 PM
By the way, I should note that part of the problem here is the ridiculous notion that money is equivalent to speech.

It's not. Money is a medium of exchange used to exchange human labor. No more and no less.

Giving a politician money is not speech: it is giving him a resource, "stored labor", which can be used in exchange for the labor of others.

That's not speech at all (speech is communication of a message), and the fact that the legal system believes it to be is, I think, one of the most grievous errors of our time, because it elevates bribery to the status of one of our most cherished rights.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 3:14 PM
Are you intentionally ignoring the Arthur Anderson example I posted in this thread? The company was convicted of a criminal felony which barred it from performing audits of public companies. It went bankrupt.


Yes. It went bankrupt. Because its customers no longer trusted it it was no longer allowed to engage in the business it was set up for. It wasn't forbidden from engaging in all business, right?

This is not the same as forced incarceration. With forced incarceration, an individual is forcibly removed from society by the government, generally for an extended period of time, even if everyone still likes him without freedom to do anything.


And how often has a corporation "died" or even been forced to shut down for an extended period of time as a result of committing a crime? What happened to Arthur Anderson was an anomaly. It took the financial scandal of the century to cause Arthur Anderson's demise.

One example, particularly one so unusual, does not make a trend.

Individuals are incarcerated daily. Are you going to even try to argue that corporations are similarly incarcerated (prevented from doing business for an extended period of time) daily? Or even monthly?

No?

Then it should be clear that the way corporations are treated by the law and the way individuals are treated by the law are not the same.



Also for a moment you need to unwind "spending money does not equal speech." Do you think the 2A would allow the government to limit you to spending only $10 a year to buy a firearm?
No, 2A would not allow the government to limit you to spending in that way, because that would be a direct limitation on an individual's ability to perform an action that is a requirement for the exercise of the right in question.

I do see your point, however, and it's a good point. I'm going to have to give this some thought.

But before I finish, here's something for you to ponder: should the amount of influence an individual has on the chances of a given politician being elected be related to how wealthy that individual is? That's another way of asking: should the influence of an individual on the government be proportional to the wealth that individual commands?

Should a wealthy politician have a greater chance of being elected than one who isn't similarly wealthy, simply because of his wealth?

Think about those questions carefully, for if the answer is "yes" then it follows that the government will be more responsive to the wealthy than to anyone else. And I, for one, am uncomfortable with that notion as regards a government that is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people".


ETA: if your answer is "yes" to the above questions, then would you be in favor of vote buying? That is, for the number of votes a person is given to be directly proportional to the amount of money they're willing to spend buying them?

OleCuss
01-24-2010, 3:22 PM
Finally, there is something very important that you and others need to consider: a corporation is an amoral entity. It has no feelings. It has no moral compass. It has no sense of ethical responsibility. It generally does not ask "what is the right thing to do" -- instead, it usually asks "what is the profitable thing to do". It does this because the people who are running it are insulated from the effects of their decisions by the corporation. That happens because the purpose of the corporation is to shield its owners and those they employ from personal liability, ostensibly in exchange for making it possible for those people to take on greater risk.

You should think very hard about the consequences to society of a bunch of amoral entities having a significant voice in the government.

I think I understand where you are going, but you really need to think about what you are saying.

Corporations are only somewhat amoral. There really is frequently a moral core to them when they are smaller but the tend to lose this as they get bigger. And if you want to get really scary you start talking the non-profit corporations which are frequently blatantly IMmoral - and many would restrict the for-profit corporations while turning the cesspool-imitating non-profits loose to do whatever they want.

The really scary thing to anyone who is posting on a 2nd Amendment thread is to look at how immoral our government is (enacting and enforcing laws which are clearly illegal under its own basic law) and then have the government determine who or what should be able to be heard? There lies disaster.

And McCain/Feingold was clearly unconstitutional from the moment it passed and you had both Republicans and Democrats voting for something that was specifically intended to limit political speech. In this country you still have a government which believes it should limit political and religious speech but that porn is heavily protected by the Constitution? This is absolutely ridiculous and is so clearly against the Constitutional intent as to beggar the imagination (and no, I don't want to outlaw porn - I just recognize the fact that the point of the First Amendment wasn't to protect porn).

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 3:28 PM
Individuals are incarcerated daily. Are you going to even try to argue that corporations are similarly incarcerated (prevented from doing business for an extended period of time) daily? Or even monthly?

No?

You're not using the appropriate sample. Enterprises that don't wish to break the laws incorporate. Enterprises that wish to break the laws don't incorporate. The reason we have RICO is because the Mob and all the other nefarious for profit enterprises don't like disclosing who they are and where their corporate offices are. Each and ever day in Federal and State courts around the US these for profit enterprises are broken up and go to jail.


But before I finish, here's something for you to ponder: should the amount of influence an individual has on the chances of a given politician being elected be related to how wealthy that individual is? That's another way of asking: should the influence of an individual on the government be proportional to the wealth that individual commands?

Should a wealthy politician have a greater chance of being elected than one who isn't similarly wealthy, simply because of his wealth?


It sucks that outcomes are not equal but it also is the reality we have to deal with. Every time someone tries to come up with some other organizing metric, well, just ask Russian intellectuals how it worked out for them in the 1930's.

Friedman can say it much better than I:
RWsx1X8PV_A

And no, I don't support vote buying. I have a lot of confidence in citizens to make good decisions. I understand the impetus to want equal outcomes but I know what the cold hard facts lead people who like that to come to realize.

-Gene

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 4:04 PM
You misunderstand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that corporations should have their speech restricted while the speech of others is not (at least, not when all other things are equal).

No, you're not. I understood it right the first time: You're saying that everybody should have their speech limited because you don't like a certain group having it. [golf clap]Bravo.[/golf clap]

I'm saying that if we are to treat corporations the same as we do people, then we must do so with respect to the penalties of law just as we do with rights and privileges.

And how is not abridging corporate speech giving corporations the same rights as a person? You do realize that corporations must have some of these rights, don't you? For example, a corporation cannot exist without it having the right to own property. The 5A applies to corporations with regard to needing due process to seize property.

The thing about a corporation is that the owner(s) don't own the stuff that the corporation owns. If they start taking that stuff as their own, that's embezzlement or theft. You can go to jail for stealing from the corporation that you own.

Right now, the only penalties of law corporations are typically subject to are financial in nature: fines and such. Individuals, on the other hand, are subject to seizure of property, incarceration, and even death.

How do you incarcerate an entity that is entirely financial in nature? I really would love to know.

I don't care how anyone spins it, I read the Bill of Rights intended for individual Natural Persons.

Evidence to support? I have evidence to the contrary:

"Congress shall make no law..." vs. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

By the way, I should note that part of the problem here is the ridiculous notion that money is equivalent to speech.

It's not. Money is a medium of exchange used to exchange human labor. No more and no less.

Giving a politician money is not speech: it is giving him a resource, "stored labor", which can be used in exchange for the labor of others.

That's not speech at all (speech is communication of a message), and the fact that the legal system believes it to be is, I think, one of the most grievous errors of our time, because it elevates bribery to the status of one of our most cherished rights.

You've been packed right full of FUD till you're ready to pop, haven't you? This didn't ban money, it banned ads. It banned them within a certain timeframe from election day. If a political ad isn't speech, then what the hell is?

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 4:24 PM
OK, guys, I'm going to ask you as plainly as I can:

How do we prevent fascism in the U.S.?

Remember that fascism is, essentially, the merging of corporations and government into essentially a single entity. The entities may be separate in name, but they're not separate in overall function.

Whether it's corporations controlling ("owning") the government, or the government owning corporations, the result is the same: a government that does not answer to the people.

How do we prevent that from happening if corporations are the most financially powerful entities in the nation and the amount of influence an individual entity has on government is determined primarily by that entity's financial resources?


Do you guys want fascism? Do you want the government to answer to corporations instead of the people?

No?

Then how do you propose to prevent that? You can't just sweep this question under the rug.

Let's hear it.

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 4:36 PM
By following the letter and intent of the Constitution.

Which this decision does.

OleCuss
01-24-2010, 4:45 PM
OK, guys, I'm going to ask you as plainly as I can:

How do we prevent fascism in the U.S.?

Remember that fascism is, essentially, the merging of corporations and government into essentially a single entity. The entities may be separate in name, but they're not separate in overall function.

Whether it's corporations controlling ("owning") the government, or the government owning corporations, the result is the same: a government that does not answer to the people.

How do we prevent that from happening if corporations are the most financially powerful entities in the nation and the amount of influence an individual entity has on government is determined primarily by that entity's financial resources?


Do you guys want fascism? Do you want the government to answer to corporations instead of the people?

No?

Then how do you propose to prevent that? You can't just sweep this question under the rug.

Let's hear it.

Let's see. . .

First, take away the politician's job security. I'm not at all sure it would be Constitutional, but I'd not let anyone who gets substantial income from the government to actively run for office. This means they couldn't ask for votes, ask for money to further their campaign, or coordinate with anyone who is encouraging people to vote for them. They should be able only to sign something saying that if they are elected to that post that they will willingly serve. This means elected officials would have to be re-elected based on their job performance. Also, since the person running against them wouldn't have the same restrictions there's a pretty good chance the incumbent loses. Since the incumbent won't have money to run for re-election they'll actually have to be doing their job and meeting with their voters to make sure they know the job is being done. Also, chairmanships and the like would not be as valuable or long-lasting so that would take away a lot of the party discipline and make politicians more responsive to their constituents.

And, again, I'd limit campaign donations to U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote. This one thing would have kept the current fascist out of the Oval Office - there is good reason to believe that a huge amount of his campaign contributions came from overseas (and illegal) sources. If everyone who donated had to demonstrate that they were an eligible voter then Obama wouldn't be there.

Probably most important to defeating fascism would be to destroy the unions. The unions are promoting it at every opportunity and the worst part is that they are teaching it at the schools. What's more, they don't even understand what fascism really is (and truth be told, kcbrown, I'm not sure you do either). To understand what fascism really is you really need to read Goldberg's definition (referenced by someone else earlier in this thread) as it is probably the best I've ever seen.

The one thing that will certainly NOT prevent the government from controlling the corporations and effecting the fascism you claim to dread is to give the government control over what said corporations can say and do.

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 4:49 PM
The one thing that will certainly NOT prevent the government from controlling the corporations and effecting the fascism you claim to dread is to give the government control over what said corporations can say and do.

So, what? Fascism is a bad way to prevent Fascism? I'd never have guessed... :rofl:

Great post, by the way.

pullnshoot25
01-24-2010, 5:09 PM
OK, guys, I'm going to ask you as plainly as I can:

How do we prevent fascism in the U.S.?

Remember that fascism is, essentially, the merging of corporations and government into essentially a single entity. The entities may be separate in name, but they're not separate in overall function.

Whether it's corporations controlling ("owning") the government, or the government owning corporations, the result is the same: a government that does not answer to the people.

How do we prevent that from happening if corporations are the most financially powerful entities in the nation and the amount of influence an individual entity has on government is determined primarily by that entity's financial resources?


Do you guys want fascism? Do you want the government to answer to corporations instead of the people?

No?

Then how do you propose to prevent that? You can't just sweep this question under the rug.

Let's hear it.

Not voting in people such as yourself would most likely be a good start. After that, everything else is downhill.

GrizzlyGuy
01-24-2010, 5:30 PM
Do you guys want fascism? Do you want the government to answer to corporations instead of the people?

No?

Then how do you propose to prevent that? You can't just sweep this question under the rug.

Let's hear it.

Here is my 3-step plan to not just prevent more fascism, but to also purge the existing fascism from our nation:

Step 1 - Make people aware of the actual history of our nation, instead of the revisionist history was taught to most of us by way of the progressive-controlled education institutions. For example, you probably didn't read something like this in your 8th grade U.S. History textbook (and likely learned the opposite):

The "robber barons" of the late 19th century robbed no one. Most of them made their money by providing valuable — if not revolutionary — goods and services to the masses at lower and lower prices for decades at a time. John D. Rockefeller, for example, caused the price of refined petroleum to drop from 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 8 cents in 1885, and continued to drop his prices for many years thereafter.

In the interest of completing step 1 related to this issue, here is a partial reading list:

Never-Ending Government Lies About Markets (http://mises.org/story/3446)

Corporatism and Socialism in America
(http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=487)
The Progressive Era - The Myth and the Reality (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=443)

The Legacy of Progressivism (http://mises.org/story/364)

Step 2 - Now that everyone knows the actual history instead of the myths and fables propagated by the leftist revisionists, those who truly care about our republic will naturally be inclined to perform step 3 (the final step) without any coercion required:

Step 3 - Fight against the progressive agenda everywhere, at all times, without compromise, so as to restore the nation to it's original form as a constitutional republic with a small, limited government.

Remember: The problem isn't the corporations, it is the government.

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 5:34 PM
I love you.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 5:38 PM
By following the letter and intent of the Constitution.

Which this decision does.

I agree, my understanding of what the bill in question forbade was lacking. The Supreme Court decision was correct.


But my question still stands.


Maybe I should outline the specific set of circumstances in question first. These circumstances are entirely in tune with the letter and intent of the Constitution, according to many of you, at least.

Some of the circumstances in question aren't currently the case, but are derived from the assumption of equal rights and, generally, freedom to act.

They are:



Corporations and individuals have equal standing with respect to rights. Whatever an individual has the right to do, a corporation also has the right to do. This isn't necessarily something I agree with, but it's something many of you do.
Individuals and corporations are free to do business with whomever they wish. More precisely, they are free to refuse to do business with whomever they wish (you may place restrictions on this to remove discrimination based on race, religion, or sex, but that will not change the resulting conclusions).
Individuals and corporations are free to associate with whomever they wish, and to cooperate with whomever they wish.
The right to free speech does not mean that everyone is entitled to use someone else's printing press without their permission. Ergo, it follows that if you use someone else's resources (even if you're paying them), they have the right to forbid you from publishing certain things if they so desire.
All mechanisms of the mass distribution of information are controlled by corporations (this is simply a statement of fact, not necessarily something "intended" by the Constitution, but it's something not forbidden by it, either, so it stands).
A politician cannot be elected if nobody knows who he is, and voters will not vote for someone if what they believe they know about him is sufficiently bad.
A politician will answer to those who made his election possible. He would be a fool not to, since failure to do so would result in those who made his election possible no longer supporting him.


The consequences of all of the above taken together are:



An individual cannot publish something to the world at large unless he either commands sufficient personal resources to do so himself or unless he can convince some corporation to publish it for him. This goes for the internet as well: the above conditions allow an ISP to forbid anyone from using the ISPs resources to publish messages (political or otherwise) the ISP disagrees with, and to require anyone making use of the ISP's service to vet their message through the ISP before the ISP will allow it to be published.
Any ISP or other publisher which decides not to play by those rules will be purchased by those who do or, alternatively, the corporations will collude to refuse to do any business with the ISP in question (this is perfectly legitimate since a business can refuse service to anyone it chooses as long as it's not discriminating based on race, sex, or religion) and therefore force it out of business. The reason for this is obvious: corporations as a whole (and thus their owners) will have more influence and power if they all cooperate, and corporations that don't play along put that additional power and influence at risk.
Owners of mass media outlets can refuse to air or publish any material which discusses a candidate they don't like. They can similarly give preferential treatment to any candidate they do like. They can refuse to air the ads of one candidate while happily airing those of another. Therefore, the only ads that will be published by a given media outlet are those of a candidate the owners of that outlet support.
The owners of all the corporations in question can cooperatively do the above. That is, they can collude to suppress the messages of one politician and to spread the messages of another.
Therefore, the only politicians that the people will ever really hear of are those that have corporate support. Those politicians, therefore, will be the ones elected to office.
Therefore, the politicians that make it into office will do the bidding of the corporations unless they wish to exit politics after their term is up.


And BAM! You have fascism, because you have a government, limited as it may be, that does (to whatever degree it can) the bidding of corporations instead of the people. It will pass laws that favor corporations as much as possible, and it will be deaf, as much as possible, to the demands of the people.

And since the Supreme Court is populated by people who are put there by the government, it follows that the Supreme Court will eventually be populated by people who will allow laws which individuals might regard as unconstitutional to stand as long as corporations benefit from it.


As far as I know, all of the above is legal as per the Constitution (save, perhaps, for the Supreme Court's actions, but the Constitution places no check on them by the people, so to object to that is of no real use), so again I ask: how do you propose to prevent fascism here in the U.S.?

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 6:04 PM
Here is my 3-step plan to not just prevent more fascism, but to also purge the existing fascism from our nation:

Step 1 - Make people aware of the actual history of our nation, instead of the revisionist history was taught to most of us by way of the progressive-controlled education institutions. For example, you probably didn't read something like this in your 8th grade U.S. History textbook (and likely learned the opposite):



In the interest of completing step 1 related to this issue, here is a partial reading list:

Never-Ending Government Lies About Markets (http://mises.org/story/3446)

Corporatism and Socialism in America
(http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=487)
The Progressive Era - The Myth and the Reality (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=443)

The Legacy of Progressivism (http://mises.org/story/364)

Step 2 - Now that everyone knows the actual history instead of the myths and fables propagated by the leftist revisionists, those who truly care about our republic will naturally be inclined to perform step 3 (the final step) without any coercion required:

Step 3 - Fight against the progressive agenda everywhere, at all times, without compromise, so as to restore the nation to it's original form as a constitutional republic with a small, limited government.

Remember: The problem isn't the corporations, it is the government.

I agree with everything you've just said here, including the references in question. I also agree with your plan, but it's not enough.

Because corporations by their nature have more financial resources than individuals, and the Constitution provides no check against the Supreme Court by the people, fascism is an inevitability with the Constitution as it's currently written.

dfletcher
01-24-2010, 6:05 PM
The emphasis is mine - for those who agreed with Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller:

"But to return to, and summarize, my principal point, which is the conformity of today’s opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker...

We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation. Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the “inherent worth of the speech” and “its capacity for informing the public,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978). Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."

Isn't the original meaning of the amendment most important and the deciding factor, even if it does create uncertainty? When the 2nd was decided in our favor and folks like Fenty and the Bradys & big city police chiefs spoke of blood in the streets, should we have backed off or agreed with them?

Over the years I've read quite a few "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" posts on various gun forums. Doesn't the same thing apply to the 1st's "Congress shall make no law" in this matter?

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 6:10 PM
Okay, here's another question for you guys:

A corporation is treated as a separate entity, right? You're basically insisting that it be treated as a separate entity with rights equal to those of an individual, right?

So it follows that someone who owns a corporation has two voices instead of one, right?

Why should someone who owns a corporation automatically have a political speech advantage over someone who doesn't?

ETA: That said, this is probably a case of picking the best of the imperfect alternatives. That is, while giving corporations the same rights to speech as individuals may confer an advantage to those who own them, the alternative of forbidding corporate speech is probably even worse, since that really does amount to stifling the speech of an individual or group of individuals.


Oh: and if corporations are to have all the same rights as people, why don't we allow corporations to vote? Isn't that a violation of the corporation's rights?

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 6:26 PM
Did you support the bailout of GM?

That was actually fascism.

There are only two actually dangerous for profit corporations that I know of in America and I can guarantee that you can't name them. They kill millions of people in the third world and they don't have anything to do with oil.

You assume your conclusion. Any corporation that doesn't do a good job making products people want to buy - dies. Just look at the record companies, the buggy whip manufacturers, etc...

-Gene

bwiese
01-24-2010, 6:27 PM
Did you support the bailout of GM?

That was actually fascism.

There are only two actually dangerous for profit corporations that I know of in America and I can guarantee that you can't name them. They kill millions of people in the third world and they don't have anything to do with oil.


Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 6:28 PM
Oh: and if corporations are to have all the same rights as people, why don't we allow corporations to vote? Isn't that a violation of the corporation's rights?

And you're worried about corporations controlling your thoughts?

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that one has to be a person to enjoy the freedom of speech. It's the freedom of speech.

If corporations don't have free speech rights then why did the New York Times corporation have an exception to this rule?

-Gene

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 6:30 PM
Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill.

Stop helping the guy who probably has to google up who they are :D

-Gene

Invisible_Dave
01-24-2010, 6:34 PM
Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill.

Can't be them, they make corn oil. "Oil" was specifically singled out.;)

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 6:34 PM
Did you support the bailout of GM?

That was actually fascism.


I agree, that was blatant fascism.

And so were the bank bailouts.

And the airline bailouts.



There are only two actually dangerous for profit corporations that I know of in America and I can guarantee that you can't name them. They kill millions of people in the third world and they don't have anything to do with oil.

You assume your conclusion. Any corporation that doesn't do a good job making products people want to buy - dies. Just look at the record companies, the buggy whip manufacturers, etc...
No, I do not assume my conclusion.

Instead, you are assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that if someone buys something, they're doing so because they want to, and therefore if a corporation remains alive, it's because they make products people like.

How does your assertion hold up in the face of monopolies and the realities of startup costs and barriers to entry in the marketplace?

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 6:38 PM
I concede the point with respect to speech. It's something everyone should be able to engage in, whether via a corporation or not.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 6:45 PM
Instead, you are assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that if someone buys something, they're doing so because they want to, and therefore if a corporation remains alive, it's because they make products people like.


I wish.

It's pretty clear to me you've never had to try to sell something. Absent government intervention its darn rare to actually lock in markets. Let me review:

RIAA: Copyright
Comcast: FCC
AT&T: FCC

The companies you've come to hate leverage the government. Here's the funny part. RIAA, the record companies, and movie studios should own D.C. Yet they don't. Why?

Look, 10 years ago (2000) Mircosoft looked unstoppable. Between Linux, OpenOffice, and Google, MS looks positively moribound. They're still huge, but they don't control things anymore. In fact Google is much closer to that crown these days. But wait, they too shall pass.

Whining that corporations have influence is just admitting that you're poor and uncreative. The anti-gun movement plus CA DOJ is vastly better financed than the little corporation called the Calguns Foundation. Yet, due to creativity and hard work, Joyce Foundation money is being turned into smoke.

Stop being afraid. Politicians need you to be afraid of corporations or you'd instead be (far more correctly) afraid of them.

-Gene

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 6:51 PM
Unions, and all orgs, create the same issue. Limiting speech to individual speakers restricts speech throughout society.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 6:59 PM
I wish.

It's pretty clear to me you've never had to try to sell something. Absent government intervention its darn rare to actually lock in markets. Let me review:

RIAA: Copyright
Comcast: FCC
AT&T: FCC

The companies you've come to hate leverage the government. Here's the funny part. RIAA, the record companies, and movie studios should own D.C. Yet they don't. Why?


ETA: What makes you think they don't? What laws have passed in recent years that were detrimental to them?



Look, 10 years ago (2000) Mircosoft looked unstoppable. Between Linux, OpenOffice, and Google, MS looks positively moribound.


Yes. It took the efforts of tens of thousands (if not more!) of volunteers donating their time freely to even make a dent in Microsoft. Many corporations, even ones as powerful as IBM, attempted to unseat Microsoft and failed.

ETA: Nevertheless, Microsoft is an existence proof of the power of a monopoly, even if it doesn't last forever. As long as the time scale in question is a significant fraction of that of a human life, I consider the monopoly status of a corporation to be a problem.



They're still huge, but they don't control things anymore. In fact Google is much closer to that crown these days. But wait, they too shall pass.
Everything passes in time. Including governments.



Whining that corporations have influence is just admitting that you're poor and uncreative. The anti-gun movement plus CA DOJ is vastly better financed than the little corporation called the Calguns Foundation. Yet, due to creativity and hard work, Joyce Foundation money is being turned into smoke.

Stop being afraid. Politicians need you to be afraid of corporations or you'd instead be (far more correctly) afraid of them.
I'm afraid of both.

But yes, the real problem is government. In particular, the problem is the government not respecting the rights of the individual and not answering to the people.

Don't you understand? Those two things are strongly intertwined. A government which does not answer to the people will not respect the rights of the people.

Why would a government answer to the people when the entities that make the election of all the politicians possible are all corporations?

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 7:16 PM
And you're worried about corporations controlling your thoughts?

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that one has to be a person to enjoy the freedom of speech. It's the freedom of speech.


So, by your reasoning then, you're fine with corporations not having the right to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure, since that right is explicitly stated as a right of the people??

GrizzlyGuy
01-24-2010, 7:18 PM
Individuals and corporations are free to do business with whomever they wish. More precisely, they are free to refuse to do business with whomever they wish (you may place restrictions on this to remove discrimination based on race, religion, or sex, but that will not change the resulting conclusions).


You just pointed out one of the reasons why 'evil' corporations won't run roughshod over our country or Constitution: We are free to business with whoever we wish, that's part of our liberty. It takes two to tango in a business transaction.

If you or I view a corporation as being 'evil', we can stop doing business with them, hop onto Calguns, and convince other people to do the same. Unless Obamacare manages to pass, the government can't force us to buy things from corporations. Boycotts are powerful weapons and are completely consistent with liberty, the free market, and our Constitution. A successful boycott will knock a corporation out faster than you can say "amoral".


And BAM! You have fascism, because you have a government, limited as it may be, that does (to whatever degree it can) the bidding of corporations instead of the people. It will pass laws that favor corporations as much as possible, and it will be deaf, as much as possible, to the demands of the people.

And since the Supreme Court is populated by people who are put there by the government, it follows that the Supreme Court will eventually be populated by people who will allow laws which individuals might regard as unconstitutional to stand as long as corporations benefit from it.

As far as I know, all of the above is legal as per the Constitution (save, perhaps, for the Supreme Court's actions, but the Constitution places no check on them by the people, so to object to that is of no real use), so again I ask: how do you propose to prevent fascism here in the U.S.?

OK, fine. Let's assume that evil corporations have helped elect presidents who stack the court with progressives, allowing these guys (http://www.constitution2020.org/) to win, and we have now reached the nightmare scenario (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3487061&postcount=1) (see just what I quoted in that post for a description of what it is, the article I'm quoting actually has a happy ending).

Solution: The Supreme Court isn't Supreme. The sovereign citizens are supreme, and they are represented by the states. The Constitution is a compact between the states, and it established the federal government. If the federal government does not respect the Constitution, the states are free to nullify it and secede (perhaps to exist as independent nations, or perhaps to form a new compact with like-minded states).

And BAM! No more fascism. :)

Don't let the constitutional shenanigans surrounding The War of Northern Aggression, or it's outcome, discourage you. The nightmare scenario can be overcome via the will of the sovereign citizens.

P.S. - Your 8th grade U.S. history textbook probably called The War of Northern Aggression the "Civil War", claimed it was fought to end slavery, claimed Lincoln was only interested in freeing the slaves, yada, yada, yada. Don't believe it. That's more revisionist bunk.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 7:35 PM
You just pointed out one of the reasons why 'evil' corporations won't run roughshod over our country or Constitution: We are free to business with whoever we wish, that's part of our liberty. It takes two to tango in a business transaction.


Yes. And if all businesses that sell what you're after refuse to do business with you, what are your alternatives then?

Blacklists aren't just a figment of someone's imagination.



If you or I view a corporation as being 'evil', we can stop doing business with them, hop onto Calguns, and convince other people to do the same.
How are you going to hop onto Calguns to convince other people to do the same if the ISP that Calguns is hosted by doesn't allow your message to get out?



Boycotts are powerful weapons and are completely consistent with liberty, the free market, and our Constitution. A successful boycott will knock a corporation out faster than you can say "amoral".
When was the last successful boycott you ever saw? Really?

I've never seen one in all the time I've been here on earth.



OK, fine. Let's assume that evil corporations have helped elect presidents who stack the court with progressives, allowing these guys (http://www.constitution2020.org/) to win, and we have now reached the nightmare scenario (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3487061&postcount=1) (see just what I quoted in that post for a description of what it is, the article I'm quoting actually has a happy ending).

Solution: The Supreme Court isn't Supreme. The sovereign citizens are supreme, and they are represented by the states. The Constitution is a compact between the states, and it established the federal government. If the federal government does not respect the Constitution, the states are free to nullify it and secede (perhaps to exist as independent nations, or perhaps to form a new compact with like-minded states).

And BAM! No more fascism. :)
You mean they're free to try to secede. The last time a large group of states tried it, they got their butts kicked.



Don't let the constitutional shenanigans surrounding The War of Northern Aggression, or it's outcome, discourage you. The nightmare scenario can be overcome via the will of the sovereign citizens.

P.S. - Your 8th grade U.S. history textbook probably called The War of Northern Aggression the "Civil War", claimed it was fought to end slavery, claimed Lincoln was only interested in freeing the slaves, yada, yada, yada. Don't believe it. That's more revisionist bunk.Perhaps. It's hard to argue that the slavery issue wasn't an issue (the 14th Amendment was passed for a reason, after all). But it doesn't change the point: the states that tried to secede lost. So you can't use secession as a trump card, because history shows that it isn't one. It's just another card to be played, although it might be a high ranking one.

Regardless, what you're really saying here is that the solution to fascism is armed revolution. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I agree that it is a solution, assuming the armed forces either fracture or come over to the side of the revolution.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 7:42 PM
Solution: The Supreme Court isn't Supreme. The sovereign citizens are supreme, and they are represented by the states. The Constitution is a compact between the states, and it established the federal government. If the federal government does not respect the Constitution, the states are free to nullify it and secede (perhaps to exist as independent nations, or perhaps to form a new compact with like-minded states).

And BAM! No more fascism. :)


Why would the states try to secede when the very same mechanisms that are in play with respect to corporations and the federal government are at play, to a (perhaps much) lesser degree, at the state level as well?

JohnJW
01-24-2010, 7:44 PM
However, the implication your heading for is that misbehaving interests should strip positive organizations of their voice.

Enough speech from the Skokie Nazis silences them and the ADL via government power?

I want Ballmer to keep speaking. Nothing is more effective at undermining Microsoft's brand!



Corporations are different from individual. It's has limited liability designed to protect its shareholders, it has indefinitely lifespan, it can further protect itself by spawning other corporation at will. Corporation are vehicles for accumulating wealth far beyond the normal means of most individual in a lifetime. The last presidential campaign cost a billion. Using our favorite company, Microsoft with ~60B in revenue, ~20B in income, and ~8B in cash. What will Steve Ballmer do? Given the cost of all the pesky anti-trust lawsuits impeding a great American company, should he try to influence the presidential election? or is it cheaper to influence key congressional races? Maybe he should pull another SCO stunt to divert attention? Are political advertisement consider expenses? It sounds like a joke and is an over simplification of a complicated issue, but rest assured that Mr. Ballmer will have the best minds in MS figuring out the best possible scenario to maximize their investments, provided their servers don't crash and Mr. Ballmer does not loose his temper, throw a chair, and short circuit the entire cluster.

Outside the esoteric world of computer geeks, Mr. Ballmer is a reputable member of our society of considerable stature. Unlike our guns, outside the esoteric world of 2A enthusiasts people shriek in horror at the mere sight of black rifles. It's all matter of public perception. Mass media and a complacent electorate has reduced our elections into mere beauty contests dominated by hot button issues engineered more for votes than public well being. These days guns enjoy almost sacred cow status across both parties not because the politicians believes in 2A but because they believe they may loose more votes than they can gain by going after guns. However, with a finicky electorate, anyone with money can erode our hard earned 2A rights with proper application of money given the right circumstances. I agree that limiting free speech is not a viable option for a enlighten electorate, but corporations are not individuals. We are naturally suspicious of men who sprinkles money graciously and ask nothing in return, but we are far more accepting of corporate money because we tend of think of corporate money as either everyone's money or nobody's money. Most people will not borrow money from a street corner loan shark but will gladly sign their lives way on a credit card/mortgage application.

I would argue that corporate money will tend to favor the incumbents. From an investment point of view, incumbents already enjoy the name recognition, therefore usually has a slight edge and I will approach the incumbent first before approaching any of the opposition candidates. How many corporations actually want to do the grunt work of building new companies from scratch when they can buy off the shelf?

I believe money usually has a corrosive effect on people's principles so I want as little of it to be in our political system as possible. Arthur Anderson, Enron, Madoff, Lehman Brother, Goldman Sacks are good examples of how easily big corporations can be subverted by just a few individuals. Image instead of cheating people out of billions and running well established companies into ruins, they destroy our trust in our democratic system. . . . but what's done is done and we will just have to wait and see.

dantodd
01-24-2010, 7:46 PM
When was the last successful boycott you ever saw? Really?

I've never seen one in all the time I've been here on earth.


I will assume that you are simply very young.

Coca-Cola left the South African market during apartheid after a very successful boycott in the US.

Concessions were made by Anheiser Busch and again, the Coca-Cola company after boycotts to include more minorities in their management ranks.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, I am sure there are more that have drifted into the vacuous space that was once my memory.

trashman
01-24-2010, 7:50 PM
Outside the esoteric world of computer geeks, Mr. Ballmer is a reputable member of our society of considerable stature

Except that non-computer or non-business geeks have by and large never heard of the guy. In my estimation the only folks outside business and computing who know who Ballmer is only do so through the Monkey Boy video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc). Certainly the great majority of Microsoft consumers don't.

And that ought to be enough to frighten anyone...

--Neill

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 7:56 PM
ETA: What makes you think they don't? What laws have passed in recent years that were detrimental to them?

The US recorded music business has fallen from $14B to $6.8B in 10 years. It's the laws that didn't pass that did not protect them. Their product stupidity has killed them and the unlimited funds they have with which to lobby didn't work. Surprisingly constituents weren't interested in paying a downloading tax here like they do in Canada.

So, by your reasoning then, you're fine with corporations not having the right to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure, since that right is explicitly stated as a right of the people??
Actually, especially in highly regulated business, there really isn't much of a 4A right. Why do you think FFLs are subject to inspection by both the Feds and the State?

-Gene

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 7:59 PM
I agree with everything you've just said here, including the references in question. I also agree with your plan, but it's not enough.

Because corporations by their nature have more financial resources than individuals, and the Constitution provides no check against the Supreme Court by the people, fascism is an inevitability with the Constitution as it's currently written.

Yes, there are checks on the Supreme Court. Take a closer look at how the three branches were set up - read the Constitution closely sometime - and you'll see that there are indeed checks and balances to keep the Supreme Court in line.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 8:00 PM
I would argue that corporate money will tend to favor the incumbents. From an investment point of view, incumbents already enjoy the name recognition, therefore usually has a slight edge and I will approach the incumbent first before approaching any of the opposition candidates. How many corporations actually want to do the grunt work of building new companies from scratch when they can buy off the shelf?

LOL! So you're telling me that incumbent politicians passed a law to stop corporate speech spending because it that spending favors incumbents? Are you serious?

-Gene

JohnJW
01-24-2010, 8:01 PM
You just pointed out one of the reasons why 'evil' corporations won't run roughshod over our country or Constitution: We are free to business with whoever we wish, that's part of our liberty. It takes two to tango in a business transaction.


Corporation are free to do business with whoever they want. Ever seen a corporation asking for more government restriction on their products for export to countries like Russia, China, and Iran? China won't even be in the space race without the help of US defense companies.

With all the out sourcing and technology transfers to authoritarian countries, do you think corporate America/Japan/EU cares more about freedom and democracy or profit and eps?

Corporate America wants right to free speech, but do you think free speech is part of corporate culture?

Business entity will not tango with anyone unless they receive something in return and that is the nature of business. There's nothing wrong with profit seeking, but profit should never be a consideration for any political activities.

JohnJW
01-24-2010, 8:06 PM
LOL! So you're telling me that incumbent politicians passed a law to stop corporate speech spending because it that spending favors incumbents? Are you serious?


Not all politicians are spineless. Some do care enough to want to limit influence of money on politics, like McCain.

However I believe most Democrats are crying foul not because they care about finance reform but because unions will get out spent by big corporation that favor the GOP. They had no qualm with accepting money for the unions, which I think are lot less ethical than your typical corporation because at least corporation do no lie about their true motive, profit for the shareholders.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 8:27 PM
Not all politicians are spineless. Some do care enough to want to limit influence of money on politics, like McCain.

I can tell you haven't read the vote list in the Senate. It's not a list of politicians with backbones. It's a list of 59 and 60 incumbents in the Senate:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/finance/a/mccain_feingold.htm

-Gene

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 8:40 PM
Yes, there are checks on the Supreme Court. Take a closer look at how the three branches were set up - read the Constitution closely sometime - and you'll see that there are indeed checks and balances to keep the Supreme Court in line.

There is no check against the Supreme Court that comes directly from the people: all checks are from other branches of the government. Since the problem here is those branches of the government, and since what's at question here is what happens when the Supreme Court abandons its mandate to uphold the Constitution and instead "sides" with the very branches that are supposed to act as a check against the Supreme Court's power, it follows that there is no effective check at all.

Once the election process stops responding to the actual will of the people (one can only choose from the choices one is given, so he who controls the available choices controls the process), it's all over.

That is very close to where we are now, and the internet is the only mechanism in place (that I know of) that has any chance at all of reversing that.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 8:46 PM
The US recorded music business has fallen from $14B to $6.8B in 10 years. It's the laws that didn't pass that did not protect them.


Laws such as?

They got the DMCA. They got the CTEA. What did they attempt to get that they didn't get?


Their product stupidity has killed them and the unlimited funds they have with which to lobby didn't work. Surprisingly constituents weren't interested in paying a downloading tax here like they do in Canada.
Ah. That. Well, did that fail to pass as a result of popular opposition, or of corporate opposition? Or both? If both, would it have passed if there hadn't been corporate opposition?



Actually, especially in highly regulated business, there really isn't much of a 4A right. Why do you think FFLs are subject to inspection by both the Feds and the State?
Those regulations are just as applicable to individuals as they are to businesses, so unless you're going to argue that the FFL regulations do not apply to individuals (and thus individuals aren't subject to inspection like FFL businesses are), your example does not qualify.

Note, too, that "business" and "corporation" are not the same thing. I can do business as an individual, and I can do business as a corporation. Are you saying that if I do FFL business as an individual, I will not be subject to inspection by the Feds and the State?

I didn't think so. I suspect not.

IrishPirate
01-24-2010, 9:24 PM
perhaps I'm missing something, but how does this bode well for McDonald? I don't see the connection......

dantodd
01-24-2010, 9:26 PM
I suppose there's really no cure for those who think the government's job is to put restrictions on the rights of others. It is mostly just a matter of which rights they want restricted and which they want unfettered.

2A Rights? unfettered.
Free Speech? well, not for everyone.
Due Process? Only for "good guys"
Marriage? Only for straight people.

There is no true freedom when the only debate is about WHICH rights should be abridged.

Hopi
01-24-2010, 9:40 PM
I suppose there's really no cure for those who think the government's job is to put restrictions on the rights of others. It is mostly just a matter of which rights they want restricted and which they want unfettered.

2A Rights? unfettered.
Free Speech? well, not for everyone.
Due Process? Only for "good guys"
Marriage? Only for straight people.

There is no true freedom when the only debate is about WHICH rights should be abridged.

amen.

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 9:41 PM
There is no check against the Supreme Court that comes directly from the people: all checks are from other branches of the government.

Uhh, yeah... That's kind of how it works with all three; we have to slap down the bad branches by using other branches against them.

Don't like the Court? Vote in better Presidents and Senators so that you'll get good Justices on it. The US is not a Democracy - there is very little direct governance, and in the cases where it's practiced regularly it turns out for the worst. Just look at CA.

perhaps I'm missing something, but how does this bode well for McDonald? I don't see the connection......

It's a strict Constitutionalist decision that disregards bad precedents from prior Supreme Courts.

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 9:44 PM
There is no true freedom when the only debate is about WHICH rights should be abridged.

Sig.

trashman
01-24-2010, 9:52 PM
It's a strict Constitutionalist decision that disregards bad precedents from prior Supreme Courts.

What worries me is the fractious nature of the SCOTUS opinions/dissents. No opinion comprised of 9 (or just 5..) different Justices can be perfect, but I do wish Heller was been more than just a 5-4 majority -- and I wish the same for Macdonald.

--Neill

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 9:52 PM
I suppose there's really no cure for those who think the government's job is to put restrictions on the rights of others. It is mostly just a matter of which rights they want restricted and which they want unfettered.

2A Rights? unfettered.
Free Speech? well, not for everyone.
Due Process? Only for "good guys"
Marriage? Only for straight people.

There is no true freedom when the only debate is about WHICH rights should be abridged.

This is true, but:



Unfettered 2A rights? Then individuals and corporations can own nuclear weapons.
Unfettered free speech? Then individuals and corporations can say anything they want, anytime they want, without regard for the truth or falsehood of what they say. No time, place, and manner restrictions at all, right?
Unfettered due process? No question we should have that (the reason I brought up 4A to Gene is strictly for the purposes of argument, namely that his claim is that corporations should have 1A rights because the text of the First Amendment doesn't limit it to people, which implies that 4A doesn't apply to corporations since it does limit it to "the people").
Unfettered marriage? Well, hmm...so since corporations have the same standing as individuals, with all the same rights and everything, then clearly an individual should be able to marry a corporation, or corporations could marry each other ... right? Though I don't think anyone's figured out how to make a suitable wedding dress. :D


The problem is that an environment with unrestricted corporations with all the rights of individuals must inevitably lead to fascism, because corporations by their very nature are orders of magnitude more powerful than individuals in every way that counts. Without restrictions, there is no equalizing force involved, and the majority of individuals will lose in a head to head competition against corporations.

So, you get to choose: do you want restricted freedom for corporate entities, or do you want fascism? There aren't really any other palatable choices on the table.

M. Sage
01-24-2010, 9:57 PM
I suppose there's really no cure for those who think the government's job is to put restrictions on the rights of others. It is mostly just a matter of which rights they want restricted and which they want unfettered.

2A Rights? unfettered.
Free Speech? well, not for everyone.
Due Process? Only for "good guys"
Marriage? Only for straight people.

There is no true freedom when the only debate is about WHICH rights should be abridged.

I kind of skipped forward in the thread, so I missed this. This was "discussion over" as far as I'm concerned. It can't be put any better than you did, IMO.

Trying to "make everyone equal" in what we have - power, money or whatever - causes inequality.

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 9:58 PM
My fear for McDonald is that we see a 3 incorp DP/2 incorp PorI/4 dissent scenario.

What worries me is the fractious nature of the SCOTUS opinions/dissents. No opinion comprised of 9 (or just 5..) different Justices can be perfect, but I do wish Heller was been more than just a 5-4 majority -- and I wish the same for Macdonald.

--Neill

trashman
01-24-2010, 10:05 PM
My fear for McDonald is that we see a 3 incorp DP/2 incorp PorI/4 dissent scenario.

Yeah - ouch - exactly.

--Neill

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 10:15 PM
Uhh, yeah... That's kind of how it works with all three; we have to slap down the bad branches by using other branches against them.

Don't like the Court? Vote in better Presidents and Senators so that you'll get good Justices on it. The US is not a Democracy - there is very little direct governance, and in the cases where it's practiced regularly it turns out for the worst. Just look at CA.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that we'd be better served by direct democracy. That wouldn't change the root cause of the problem at all. In fact, I suspect this outcome could have been delayed had the Constitution not been amended to enable election of the senate by the people rather than the states.

Regardless, I must be explaining the problem badly, because it seems you still don't see it.

The problem is twofold:


Corporations control the vast majority of the information presented to the electorate, because corporations control both the print and broadcast mass media. This is because those things require a lot of resources to operate, so individuals can't fulfill that role.
Corporations collude with each other to ensure that the information that is presented is done so in such a way as to maximize the chances that the electorate will vote for someone acceptable to the corporations. This happens because there are certain agendas that all corporations have. A government that is friendly to their interests is one of them.

They have that kind of control because of the resources they control, and the end result is that the only "electable" candidates "just happen to be" friendly to the corporations.

With that kind of setup, there is essentially no chance that a "for the people" candidate can win unless that candidate is willing to do the bidding of the corporations. That means that when there is a conflict between the rights of the people and the desires of the corporations, the corporations will win in the legislature and, with enough time, the judiciary as well (since the judiciary is appointed by the legislature). That is the very essence of fascism.


Now how do you propose to fix or prevent that without restricting the rights of corporations? The above is a self-perpetuating system that can exist in the face of the Constitution as it is currently written, and easily exists in an environment where the government can ignore the Constitution at will, essentially like it does right now.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 10:24 PM
I kind of skipped forward in the thread, so I missed this. This was "discussion over" as far as I'm concerned. It can't be put any better than you did, IMO.

Trying to "make everyone equal" in what we have - power, money or whatever - causes inequality.

And not trying to do so results in inequality as well.

So we shouldn't bother to try, then?

Perhaps.


Why clamor for equal rights then? Why not simply abolish the government altogether and let anarchy rule? Let he who commands the most resources take whatever he can from those who don't.

How is equalizing the influence individual entities have over the government any less desirable than equalizing the rights of individual entities?

dantodd
01-24-2010, 10:24 PM
Regardless, I must be explaining the problem badly, because it seems you still don't see it.

The problem is twofold:


Corporations control the vast majority of the information presented to the electorate, because corporations control both the print and broadcast mass media. This is because those things require a lot of resources to operate, so individuals can't fulfill that role.
Corporations collude with each other to ensure that the information that is presented is done so in such a way as to maximize the chances that the electorate will vote for someone acceptable to the corporations. This happens because there are certain agendas that all corporations have. A government that is friendly to their interests is one of them.



Just because someone doesn't agree with your premise does not mean they do not understand it.

The corporations that control the "vast majority" of information were specifically exempted by McCain Feingold. NYT etc. while conceivably effected were actually exempted so they still had the ability to control what information reaches the poor souls who are foolish enough to rely on them. So your first point falls away as it relates to the law in question.

On the second point there is little or no evidence that such collusion takes place. I agree that much of the "mainstream media" shares a world view but not for a moment do I believe they get together to collude on elections or who is to be excluded from their papers/TV stations etc. i.e. your tinfoil hat is too tight.

Of course businesses want a government that is friendly to business, just as gun owners want a government that is friendly to gun owners and union members want a government that is friendly to union members etc. I doubt you will find anyone who wants a government that will oppress them.


That is the very essence of fascism.


You have it backwards. Fascism is defined as corporations controlled by the government, not the other way around. There is a significant difference.

OleCuss
01-24-2010, 10:31 PM
This is true, but:



Unfettered 2A rights? Then individuals and corporations can own nuclear weapons.

You mean, like the politicians do? And actually, I have no problem with an individual owning nukes - as long as it is done in the proper context. We are supposed to be a militia of free men. If the government didn't discourage an armed and trained independent militia - then we would be able to exercise our 2A rights as part of a militia. If that militia perceived the need for nuclear weapons and I had the means to use them properly and securely - then I should be able to get or make them (an absurdly unlikely proposition BTW).

Do remember that our Revolutionary War was triggered by our then government trying to confiscate weaponry and ammunition - especially the gunpowder that was intended for use in cannon/artillery. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights was drawn up in a milieu in which the founders wanted the citizenry armed with the same weaponry (or better) than any possible opponent - including the government. Properly establish a well-regulated militia and you won't have any problem with individuals owning heavy weaponry - and you'd be sure that the loons weren't getting weapons at all.


Unfettered free speech? Then individuals and corporations can say anything they want, anytime they want, without regard for the truth or falsehood of what they say. No time, place, and manner restrictions at all, right?

You mean just like the politicians?


Unfettered due process? No question we should have that (the reason I brought up 4A to Gene is strictly for the purposes of argument, namely that his claim is that corporations should have 2A rights because the text of the First Amendment doesn't limit it to people, which implies that 4A doesn't apply to corporations since it does limit it to "the people").

Very little meaning left to the 4th Amendment. The Supremes gutted it and over time people will learn that they effectively turned over ownership of everything to the government. Your property taxes are now effectively a sort of rent that you pay the government to allow you to continue to use that property - and if they can get more rent from someone else they'll take it from you and rent it to them. What's more, government CAN limit speech on its property so eventually we'll see them gutting the 1st Amendment through its gutting of the 4th - but it will take a while.

Point? The 4th has been largely gutted so you may not want to use it much for illustrative purposes.


Unfettered marriage? Well, hmm...so since corporations have the same standing as individuals, with all the same rights and everything, then clearly an individual should be able to marry a corporation, or corporations could marry each other ... right? Though I don't think anyone's figured out how to make a suitable wedding dress. :D


Hmm. . . You have heard of mergers, right? And the break-up of a corporation is effectively the equivalent of a divorce?

The problem is that an environment with unrestricted corporations with all the rights of individuals must inevitably lead to fascism, because corporations by their very nature are orders of magnitude more powerful than individuals in every way that counts. Without restrictions, there is no equalizing force involved, and the majority of individuals will lose in a head to head competition against corporations.

Corporations do not have rights equivalent to an individual. For example, I have yet to see a corporation walk into a voting booth. . .

So, you get to choose: do you want restricted freedom for corporate entities, or do you want fascism? There aren't really any other palatable choices on the table.

OK, now you have to understand something - at least eventually. The system whereby the government controls the corporations through regulation and taxation IS fascism by your definition. I don't see how you can argue that we must avoid fascism (by your definition) by implementing it!!??? Bizarre. . .

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Just because someone doesn't agree with your premise does not mean they do not understand it.

The corporations that control the "vast majority" of information were specifically exempted by McCain Feingold. NYT etc. while conceivably effected were actually exempted so they still had the ability to control what information reaches the poor souls who are foolish enough to rely on them. So your first point falls away as it relates to the law in question.


My discussion isn't related to the law in question, it is about the rights of corporations in the general case.

I agree that McCain Feingold was a bad law. Should have been put out of its misery well before it was passed.



On the second point there is little or no evidence that such collusion takes place. I agree that much of the "mainstream media" shares a world view but not for a moment do I believe they get together to collude on elections or who is to be excluded from their papers/TV stations etc. i.e. your tinfoil hat is too tight.
The collusion in question needn't be explicit. The fact that corporations all share a common agenda with respect to government influence means that whatever candidate gets media exposure (particularly positive media exposure), it will be one that is friendly to corporations. While corporations may differ a bit on which candidate will serve their interests better, what matters is that they agree on who will not serve their interests, and avoid giving such a candidate media exposure. No corporation is going to be stupid enough to give an anti-corporate politician any real media exposure, because if anything doing so would "not be in the interests of the shareholders". :rolleyes:

Just as gunnies will gravitate towards certain candidates that share their agenda, so too will corporations gravitate towards certain candidates that share their agenda. The difference is that the corporations also control who gets media exposure and, more importantly, who doesn't. Nobody else controls that.

He who controls the flow of information controls the world.



Of course businesses want a government that is friendly to business, just as gun owners want a government that is friendly to gun owners and union members want a government that is friendly to union members etc. I doubt you will find anyone who wants a government that will oppress them.
That's true as far as it goes. The difference is that corporations by their very nature are far more powerful than individuals and therefore are far more capable of getting what they want from government than individuals.



You have it backwards. Fascism is defined as corporations controlled by the government, not the other way around. There is a significant difference.Ah, so fascism is actually communism?

Fascism is the merger of the corporations with the state. Whether that happens as a result of government decree or corporate control is irrelevant: the end result is the same.

mblat
01-24-2010, 10:52 PM
You have it backwards. Fascism is defined as corporations controlled by the government, not the other way around. There is a significant difference.

Huh? There are no "corporations" in communism, everything belongs to people. :rolleyes:
And, no, corporations didn't control governments of Germany or Italy. Hitler and Mussolini controlled them.

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 10:55 PM
Corporations do not have rights equivalent to an individual. For example, I have yet to see a corporation walk into a voting booth. . .


No, but people here are arguing that corporations should have all the rights that individuals have, no?

If not, then a counterquestion would be: why shouldn't corporations have all of the rights that individuals have? If you're going to insist that corporations should have some of the rights that individuals have, why not go all the way?



OK, now you have to understand something - at least eventually. The system whereby the government controls the corporations through regulation and taxation IS fascism by your definition. I don't see how you can argue that we must avoid fascism (by your definition) by implementing it!!??? Bizarre. . .Fascism is the merger of corporations and the state into a single functional entity. You equate any taxation and/or regulation of corporations at all with fascism?

That's bizarre. And incorrect. It'd be fascism if the end result was essentially complete control of the corporations in question. There is a difference between some control and essentially complete control. The latter occurs when the amount of control is such that the controlled entity does nothing without the approval of the controlling entity unless the controlling entity simply does not care.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 11:03 PM
Note, too, that "business" and "corporation" are not the same thing. I can do business as an individual, and I can do business as a corporation. Are you saying that if I do FFL business as an individual, I will not be subject to inspection by the Feds and the State?

I didn't think so. I suspect not.

If you have an anything except an 03 FFL, the licensed premises is subject to search at all times.

Since you don't understand how the 4A works, why are you so sure about everything else?

-Gene

OleCuss
01-24-2010, 11:03 PM
Let me do just a little bit of basic lecturing. . .

Does anyone remember when Clinton tried to put through a "health care" plan? That was a payoff to the unions and businesses which supported him. It would have relieved the unions of much of the need to pay for its retirees health care and would have given a similar sop to the big corporations. I don't have quite as direct knowledge of Obama's motivations but I suspect they are similar - and the idea of compassion for the little guy is at best a very small portion of that motivation.

Also, corporations get to be the biggest because they are heavily regulated. You heavily regulate a corporation and the same heavy regulatory burden (or worse) is applied to their tiny little competitor who literally cannot compete because of the taxation and regulations (a regulatory burden which costs $10,000 is not as easily borne by a corporation with an income of $10,000 per year as it is borne by a corporation which makes $1,000,000,000). So the little guy can't grow to a size at which they can kill Goliath BECAUSE of the regulations.

Net effect is that if the government controls/regulates the corporations they also protect them from competition.

It also goes further to the free speech concept. The giant corporations are in bed with government already. They have their lobbyists and they have their alliances. What they all fear is that someone somewhere will come up with both the gumption and the money to point out their fundamental corruption. Limiting political free speech is one way of squelching their opposition and McCain/Feingold was their gem (the fundamentally corrupt politicians were the only ones who could effectively raise pointed questions at the critical time in the elections).

If you want a robust democratic process then the government's role should be to make that process transparent. We should know who is running, why they are running, what their qualifications are, what they have done in the past, and what they are likely to do in the future - and a huge amount of that was hidden in the last election and that election was under McCain/Feingold rules.

Part of making the process transparent should be a regulatory process which is mostly about making sure the consumer is informed about the business practices and policies of the various corporations. If you do that, then corporations would have to compete on that basis.

As it is, the corporations compete on two levels - one is making the consumer happy and the other is making the regulator happy. And since the regulator is the one who will shut them down and imprison them, they primarily serve the government.

You also need to understand that 80+% of your elected officials don't give one whit about you. All they want is personal power and money. That means that the net effect is that both the corporations and you serve your government - not the other way around.

Good night y'all. Badly need my beauty sleep.

OleCuss
01-24-2010, 11:07 PM
No, but people here are arguing that corporations should have all the rights that individuals have, no?

If not, then a counterquestion would be: why shouldn't corporations have all of the rights that individuals have? If you're going to insist that corporations should have some of the rights that individuals have, why not go all the way?


Fascism is the merger of corporations and the state into a single functional entity. You equate any taxation and/or regulation of corporations at all with fascism?

That's bizarre. And incorrect. It'd be fascism if the end result was essentially complete control of the corporations in question. There is a difference between some control and essentially complete control. The latter occurs when the amount of control is such that the controlled entity does nothing without the approval of the controlling entity unless the controlling entity simply does not care.

I don't think you've paid attention to what people have been saying. They are arguing primarily about free speech as applied to corporations.

And you really don't understand how our business are regulated. Read my immediately previous post. And do understand that Obama fired the GM head? Obama and company completely control some of our biggest organizations. Setting salaries, policies, acceptable rates, etc. The ones who claim to oppose fascism are the ones implementing it.

JohnJW
01-24-2010, 11:08 PM
I can tell you haven't read the vote list in the Senate. It's not a list of politicians with backbones. It's a list of 59 and 60 incumbents in the Senate:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/finance/a/mccain_feingold.htm



So the argument is that incumbents are all bad? mostly bad? some are bad?

The issue with unrestricted corporate money is not whether it will help the incumbents or not, it's about whether it will serve to benefit the people or the corporation. Currently, money is the life blood of politicians, and by allowing more money from even bigger donors to further degenerate our elections into airwave shouting matching are we really promoting democracy or are we just perpetuating the idea that money can and will buy access and influence.

I would much rather my elected official tell me, "thank you for you donation but I am afraid I cannot support your position because of xyz reason" than just "thank you for you donation I will support you cause." Most of us seems to have forgotten that we are not voting for lap dogs but people who genuinely care about the issues and are diligent enough in wanting to know all sides of the argument before making up their minds. None of us live in a homogenous district and if we continue to focus on single issue we will always be stuck on the political marry go around. Yet, corporate America will probably be a single issue "voter." "Vote" as in voting with with its money.

I seriously doubt if corporate American will be on 2A's side if push comes to shoves. We are in the minority and if forced to choose between mother with babies and guys with guns, I don't think we're going to most battles. How many fortune 500 companies believes in 2A to allow CCW on premise, or in 1A to allow employees to publicly air their grievances? I don't buy the argument that corporations are of equal political entity to citizens. Sorry, I support equal political rights for all but that only extends to humans, not animals nor corporations.

JohnJW
01-24-2010, 11:23 PM
I kind of skipped forward in the thread, so I missed this. This was "discussion over" as far as I'm concerned. It can't be put any better than you did, IMO.

Trying to "make everyone equal" in what we have - power, money or whatever - causes inequality.

Are you taking about making individuals or corporations. There are definitely inequalities between the two. On the fiscal side, corporations has far more tax benefit than individuals. Corporations are made up of shareholder and executives that are sometimes mutually exclusive, but shareholders and executives are also individuals so does the "equal" right part extends through executives or shareholders, both being individuals? That would mean those people gets to be twice the citizen, one through the corporation and the other themselves, right? At best, corporations are mental patients with schizophrenia or multi-personality disorder. With that kind of problem I don't want corporations dolling out massive amount of campaign contributions.

Pretending corporations are humans simply makes no sense. It's like giving cars the right to vote.

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 11:35 PM
So the argument is that incumbents are all bad? mostly bad? some are bad?


I trust incentives. When 60 senators all agree that something is good, then I'm pretty confident it's in their best interest. I've found that sitting politician's best interest is rarely in my interest.

Have you not internalized that incentives both matter and can explain most phenomenon?

-Gene

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 11:43 PM
Okay, here's one question for you guys that may prove to have some interesting answers:

Why should people who own corporations have reduced liability for the actions they perform through the corporation? Isn't that a violation of the principle of equal protection under the law?

wildhawker
01-24-2010, 11:45 PM
I trust incentives. When 60 senators all agree that something is good, then I'm pretty confident it's in their best interest. I've found that sitting politician's best interest is rarely in my interest.

Have you not internalized that incentives both matter and can explain most phenomenon?

-Gene

WHAT?!? Someone get me the President!

hoffmang
01-24-2010, 11:47 PM
Why should people who own corporations have reduced liability for the actions they perform through the corporation? Isn't that a violation of the principle of equal protection under the law?

Anyone who wishes to incorporate can access the privilege - its fully equal.

-Gene

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 11:55 PM
If you have an anything except an 03 FFL, the licensed premises is subject to search at all times.


Right. Regardless of whether the license is held by an individual or corporation, right?

So why did you use it as an example of how corporations are not protected by the 4th Amendment, when it appears instead to be an example of when nobody is thusly protected?

The question is: under what conditions is a corporation not protected by the 4th Amendment when an individual would be under identical circumstances? If there are no such conditions then why do corporations get that protection when the 4th Amendment explicitly says "the people"?

Remember, this goes back to your (apparent) claim that corporations are covered by the 1st Amendment because the 1st Amendment doesn't mention "people" or any variation thereof. That justification cannot be used to support 4th Amendment protection of corporations, can it? If so, how, when it explicitly says "the people"?



Since you don't understand how the 4A works, why are you so sure about everything else?
I'm not, although I may appear that way. :o

I learn through debate (as bad a debater as I may be).

kcbrown
01-24-2010, 11:58 PM
Anyone who wishes to incorporate can access the privilege - its fully equal.


Um, wait.

Equal protection is a privilege?

I thought it was a right...


Or am I misreading you here?


Is there any legal reason a person can be denied incorporation? Or is incorporation a right?

If incorporation is not a right, but is required to obtain equal protection under the law, then does it not follow that equal protection itself is not a right but a privilege?

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 12:05 AM
The question is: under what conditions is a corporation not protected by the 4th Amendment when an individual would be under identical circumstances? If there are no such conditions then why do corporations get that protection when the 4th Amendment explicitly says "the people"?


If you're in a highly regulated line of business you have significantly reduced 4A rights regardless of corporate form including sole proprietorship. The only "4A" rights a corporation gets are basically the pass through rights that the directors and officers would receive if there is no corporation. The government can't go searching warrant-less in my office. However, I as an officer and director of my corporation can waive my employee's fourth amendment rights in places and things he has no expectation of privacy in because they belong to the corporation.

The privilege I was discussing was the ability of a corporation to receive limited liability. Any natural person can incorporate and that person's (or group's) corporation will have the privilege of limited liability. The ability to incorporate probably isn't a "right" per se but its certainly something subject to equal protection of the law.

Part of the problem here is that you're running off assuming that the law of corporation and the fourth amendment is easily understood. It's far richer and deeper than you think it is, trust me.

You really need to at least read wikipedia on some of the stuff you're asserting.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 12:09 AM
I'm probably done debating you for one simple reason. As you yourself admitted much further up the thread, it doesn't matter if corporations have the rights of people. The freedom of speech is not about people. It's about speech.

-Gene

kcbrown
01-25-2010, 12:18 AM
If you're in a highly regulated line of business you have significantly reduced 4A rights regardless of corporate form including sole proprietorship.


But that includes doing business as an individual without the protection of doing business through a corporation, right?

If so, that's not a reduction of corporate 4A protection, that's a reduction of protection for everyone in that line of business, corporation or not.



The only "4A" rights a corporation gets are basically the pass through rights that the directors and officers would receive if there is no corporation. The government can't go searching warrant-less in my office. However, I as an officer and director of my corporation can waive my employee's fourth amendment rights in places and things he has no expectation of privacy in because they belong to the corporation.
Okay, that makes sense. So from the standpoint of the the application of rights, the corporation and the owners of the corporation are essentially the same thing? I won't be surprised if it's far more complicated than that, but is that the general idea?



Part of the problem here is that you're running off assuming that the law of corporation and the fourth amendment is easily understood. It's far richer and deeper than you think it is, trust me.

You really need to at least read wikipedia on some of the stuff you're asserting.
I'll be happy to do precisely that. Are there any particular pages that would be most instructive for me to examine?

JohnJW
01-25-2010, 12:21 AM
I trust incentives. When 60 senators all agree that something is good, then I'm pretty confident it's in their best interest. I've found that sitting politician's best interest is rarely in my interest.

Have you not internalized that incentives both matter and can explain most phenomenon?



You can't be that cynical. You're they guy who brought hope to those of us who thought the system was broken beyond repair for 2A.

Personally I'm just another profit driven capitalist, but gradually I've form the opinion that we have to protect our government and other public institution from for-profit corporations. However, SCOTUS has spoken and even though I don't like it, if corporate money proves to be detrimental to our electoral process, I'm sure we will fix whatever problem that arises. The world is not going to end. I thought life will cease to exist after SB23 nuclear bomb, but funny thing is, a decade later 2A life flourishes just as strongly as before. We'll just have to wait and see. . . .

GrizzlyGuy
01-25-2010, 9:19 AM
KC, I just got up and read through what’s been going on since my last post here (a lot), and I’d need to write a 50 page paper to respond to all your assertions. I think you’re off on a number of premises and (no offense) that may be due to insufficient knowledge in some of these areas. I’ve grabbed some specific instances in quoting you below to facilitate your doing this (use Google and peruse as many alternate source as you like, I don’t want you to think I “rigged” this by specifying particular pages):

I'll be happy to do precisely that. Are there any particular pages that would be most instructive for me to examine?

------


The problem is twofold:


Corporations control the vast majority of the information presented to the electorate, because corporations control both the print and broadcast mass media. This is because those things require a lot of resources to operate, so individuals can't fulfill that role.
Corporations collude with each other to ensure that the information that is presented is done so in such a way as to maximize the chances that the electorate will vote for someone acceptable to the corporations. This happens because there are certain agendas that all corporations have. A government that is friendly to their interests is one of them.



Your false premise here is that all corporations share a common self-interest and will work together to achieve common goals. You assert that again in a later post:

The collusion in question needn't be explicit. The fact that corporations all share a common agenda with respect to government influence means that whatever candidate gets media exposure (particularly positive media exposure), it will be one that is friendly to corporations.

In reality, most corporations in most markets fiercely compete against each other since they do not have common goals. The self-interest of each is similar to opposing forces in a war: each wants to knock the others out and claim all the spoils for themselves. This fierce competition serves as checks-and-balances against the corporate government takeover you envision. Examples:

Software Industry – Microsoft, Google, Apple

Aircraft Industry – Boeing, Airbus

Automobile Industry – GM, Ford, Toyota

And yes, I intentionally included foreign corporations in the example list to hopefully demonstrate that this type of competition exists across national boundaries where it would be more difficult for ‘evil corporations’ to gain control of government (they would have to gain control of many governments instead of just ours).

Fascism is the merger of corporations and the state into a single functional entity.

No, there is no merger like that under fascism. Private individuals (e.g., shareholders in the case of corporations) retain ownership of the means of production, but the government directs how the business operates so as to effectively control those means of production.

You equate any taxation and/or regulation of corporations at all with fascism?

Yes. When government regulates how businesses operate, the regulations take economic liberty from the owners of the business and keep it for themselves. That is, government gains some degree of control over those means of production. There is no black/white divide between free-market capitalism and fascism: it is a matter of degree (shades of grey) in a continuous spectrum with pure examples of each existing only at the ends of the spectrum.

The FDA and its regulations are a good example of actual (but not total) fascism here in the U.S. The FDA regulates virtually every aspect of how pharmaceutical companies operate: their R&D processes, their manufacturing processes, product labeling, customer service and complaint handling processes, marketing practices, etc. The owners, directors and managers of pharmaceutical companies have lost a great deal of economic freedom under these fascist regulations. Their free will is greatly constrained by the government.

The question is: under what conditions is a corporation not protected by the 4th Amendment when an individual would be under identical circumstances? If there are no such conditions then why do corporations get that protection when the 4th Amendment explicitly says "the people"?

FDA-regulated pharmaceutical and medical device companies are subject to audit and inspection by the FDA at any time. The FDA can audit and inspect virtually every area of these companies, and virtually every area of their business records. If the FDA finds anything wrong, they can choose to warn the company, fine the company, or even shut down the company’s manufacturing operations. It is completely at their discretion and there is little due process.

It would be akin to you allowing the government warrantless entry into your home, at any time, with no constraints on what or where they can search (including into your locked gun safe, and inside any encrypted data files you may keep) and if they think they have found anything wrong, they can jail you without bail until a trial can be held far in the future.

That is just one example of one regulated industry showing that corporations have far fewer constitutional rights than a private citizen. If you’d like to read through some of the FDA warning letters (the precursor to fines and penalties if the company does not immediately act in the way desired by the government, with supporting evidence obtained via their warrantless searches) go here (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/default.htm).

Going back to your point that "corporations collude with each other", I concede that you will sometimes see competing corporations within an industry ally themselves in support of one common goal: to reduce regulation of their industry. Or in other words, sometimes you will see corporations unite to fight their common enemy: fascism. :)

davescz
01-25-2010, 9:34 AM
Giving corporations rights that belong to individuals will be the the downfall of this republic

since "corporations" can't vote, they should not be taxed at all, no taxation with out representation. Only tax individuals seems fair, specialy if corporation's are silenced

wildhawker
01-25-2010, 9:35 AM
FDA is an abomination, and USDA makes FDA look downright friendly in many instances.

dfletcher
01-25-2010, 9:42 AM
I think ultimately, whatever uncertainty may come as a result, we go back to the 1st Amendment as written and ask what does it protect. I think it protects the concept and act of speech and although we may post concerns and opinions of corporate inclinations I think, better than the 2nd Amendment, the 1st simply says what it says.

The alternative of keeping McCain-Feingold is I think abhorrent. Elected politicians, deciding who can campaign against them at what time and how. That's a pretty good deal for them, I'd say, and agree with Justice Roberts that it's nothing more than government sponsored censorship.

7x57
01-25-2010, 10:49 AM
Software Industry – Microsoft, Google, Apple


Nitpicking point--Microsoft and Apple are not a good example. At various times Microsoft has kept Apple alive when it could have been crushed simply to avoid further anti-trust action. While MS likes to skate close to the edge on many issues, the management was quite aware that they succeeded because IBM was under the DoJ's thumb and didn't dare crush small upstarts. MS did not intend to suffer the same fate, and needed a captive "competitor" with just enough market share to deflect the DoJ without actually being a threat. I would not be surprised to find out that there were years where Apple's market share was essentially planned in Redmond.

That doesn't mean they have the same relationship today. Just because it was in MS's interests to keep a slave and in Apple's interest to be a slave doesn't mean the slave doesn't still yearn and plot to be free at the earliest opportunity.

7x57

GrizzlyGuy
01-25-2010, 10:50 AM
FDA is an abomination, and USDA makes FDA look downright friendly in many instances.

Agreed. Just for fun, I went to the FDA warning letter site (linked for KC in my above post) and grabbed one of them at random. This one (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm161374.htm). Let's break it down:

The 'evil' corporation:

Aunt Kitty's Foods, Inc

Warrantless search:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection of your subsidiary company, Aunt Kitty's Foods, Inc.


Warrantless seizure:

we collected samples of (b)(4) Brand Red Clam Italian Style Pasta Sauce (15 lot number VM 61100733331 NOV 2010, manufactured by Aunt Kitty's Foods, Inc.

Evaluated against an unconstituonal "law" (regulations created by unelected bureaucrats in this executive branch agency carry the same weight as actual laws passed by Congress, yet contrary to the Constitution, Congress delegated its Article 1 responsibility to the executive branch to make and modify these regulations any time it likes):

to determine compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and with FDA's food labeling requirements (21 CFR Part 101 - Food Labeling)

"Fact" from government's anonymous "expert witness", with undetermined qualifications, admitted as evidence without challenge:

FDA analyzed a (b)(4) sample of the brand Red Clam Italian Style Pasta Sauce (15 oz)...The analyzed content of your red clam sauce was found to contain 50.2% (4.52 mg) (original analysis) and 38.8% (3.94 mg) (check analysis) of the amount of Vitamin C declared on the label.


Judgement rendered, by an unelected bureaucrat, without challenge:

Thus, your product contains less than eighty percent of the value for Vitamin C declared on the label, and by a factor that is greater than the variability generally recognized for the analytical method used. Therefore, your product is misbranded under section 403(a)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(I)] in that the label is false or misleading.

Force threatened under color of law:

You should take prompt action to correct this deviation, and any other deviations that may exist at your firm. Failure to promptly correct the above referenced deviation may result in regulatory action without additional notice, such as seizure or injunction.

Unreasonably short amount of time provided to do exactly what the government dictates (forget about an opportunity to actually question what the government has concluded, how it's evidence was derived, etc.):

You should notify this office in writing, within 15 working days of receipt of this letter, of the corrective actions you plan to make, including an explanation and timeline for each step to be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar deviations.

A low-level unelected bureaucrat (analogous to a beat cop who may be fresh out of the academy) will unilateraly decide if the hoops have been sufficiently jumped through, and if further force will be applied:

Your reply should be sent to The Food and Drug Administration, New Jersey District Office, 10 Waterview Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054, Attention Joseph F. McGinnis, Compliance Officer. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. McGinnis at 973-33-4905.


All this unconstitutional force and fear of force... in a case where NO ONE is going to get sick or die because poor Aunt Kitty got the vitamin C content wrong on her pasta sauce's label. Remember: that's just a random selection out of thousands of warning letters, and this one is a super-duper mild example of the FDA's everyday fascism at work. :mad:

kcbrown
01-25-2010, 1:03 PM
KC, I just got up and read through what’s been going on since my last post here (a lot), and I’d need to write a 50 page paper to respond to all your assertions. I think you’re off on a number of premises and (no offense) that may be due to insufficient knowledge in some of these areas. I’ve grabbed some specific instances in quoting you below to facilitate your doing this (use Google and peruse as many alternate source as you like, I don’t want you to think I “rigged” this by specifying particular pages):


Not a problem. I very much appreciate the effort!





Your false premise here is that all corporations share a common self-interest and will work together to achieve common goals. You assert that again in a later post:



In reality, most corporations in most markets fiercely compete against each other since they do not have common goals. The self-interest of each is similar to opposing forces in a war: each wants to knock the others out and claim all the spoils for themselves. This fierce competition serves as checks-and-balances against the corporate government takeover you envision. Examples:
OK, maybe I should illustrate my point another way:

Why would any media corporation give any exposure to a candidate who has stated without question that he will not do any corporation any favors at all? Wouldn't that be counter to the interests of the corporation that owns the media outlet in question, since that corporation wants any candidate that wins to be amenable to its suggestions?

If all media corporations behave the way that one would, by refusing to give exposure to candidates that they know will be uncooperative, isn't the end result that no candidate who is staunchly unwilling to do the bidding of corporations will receive media exposure?



No, there is no merger like that under fascism. Private individuals (e.g., shareholders in the case of corporations) retain ownership of the means of production, but the government directs how the business operates so as to effectively control those means of production.
Maybe we need a new term then.

What do you call it when the corporations of a country have complete control of the government?



Yes. When government regulates how businesses operate, the regulations take economic liberty from the owners of the business and keep it for themselves. That is, government gains some degree of control over those means of production. There is no black/white divide between free-market capitalism and fascism: it is a matter of degree (shades of grey) in a continuous spectrum with pure examples of each existing only at the ends of the spectrum.
Okay, that's a good point. I agree.



The FDA and its regulations are a good example of actual (but not total) fascism here in the U.S. The FDA regulates virtually every aspect of how pharmaceutical companies operate: their R&D processes, their manufacturing processes, product labeling, customer service and complaint handling processes, marketing practices, etc. The owners, directors and managers of pharmaceutical companies have lost a great deal of economic freedom under these fascist regulations. Their free will is greatly constrained by the government.
Yeah, I know. The FAA is the same way, and it's easy to see what has happened in the general aviation sector as a result: piston engined airplanes are still using mechanical fuel injection! And the prices are way beyond what they should be.



FDA-regulated pharmaceutical and medical device companies are subject to audit and inspection by the FDA at any time. The FDA can audit and inspect virtually every area of these companies, and virtually every area of their business records. If the FDA finds anything wrong, they can choose to warn the company, fine the company, or even shut down the company’s manufacturing operations. It is completely at their discretion and there is little due process.
But that regulation is on the industry, right? In other words, if you as an individual, without the umbrella of a corporation, wish to engage in business in that industry, you will be subject to the same thing, right?

I agree, that's fascism, but worse, it's a clear violation of civil rights.



That is just one example of one regulated industry showing that corporations have far fewer constitutional rights than a private citizen. If you’d like to read through some of the FDA warning letters (the precursor to fines and penalties if the company does not immediately act in the way desired by the government, with supporting evidence obtained via their warrantless searches) go here (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/default.htm).
But wouldn't an individual who chooses to engage in that particular business be subject to exactly the same regulations, and thus the same search and seizure violations?

In other words, isn't this a case where individuals are no more protected than corporations are?

I mean, if individuals were more protected than corporations in that industry, then wouldn't most people who wanted to engage in that business do so as individuals instead of through corporations?



Going back to your point that "corporations collude with each other", I concede that you will sometimes see competing corporations within an industry ally themselves in support of one common goal: to reduce regulation of their industry. Or in other words, sometimes you will see corporations unite to fight their common enemy: fascism. :)Heh. This is true as well.


I'll start Googling and Wikipediaing soon. :)

kcbrown
01-25-2010, 1:56 PM
Why would any media corporation give any exposure to a candidate who has stated without question that he will not do any corporation any favors at all? Wouldn't that be counter to the interests of the corporation that owns the media outlet in question, since that corporation wants any candidate that wins to be amenable to its suggestions?

If all media corporations behave the way that one would, by refusing to give exposure to candidates that they know will be uncooperative, isn't the end result that no candidate who is staunchly unwilling to do the bidding of corporations will receive media exposure?


The next logical step after this is for any given media corporation to "vet" any given candidate it's considering giving media exposure to in order to ensure that said candidate is not only as described above, but is actually willing to do what the media corporation in question wants him to do, and to refuse to give exposure to any candidate that doesn't express that willingness.

I would expect that some media outlets will screen more heavily than others, but it should be clear that it's not in the best interests of a corporation that owns a media outlet to give exposure to a candidate that isn't willing to do what that corporation wants when asked, don't you agree?

IrishPirate
01-25-2010, 2:39 PM
:threadjacked:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/threadjackh.jpg

pardon me for not reading 23 pages of serious posting, but since my question wasn't answered earlier (around page 19), I'll ask it again.

how exactly does what was in the OP help the McDonald case? I'm not saying it doesn't, i just don't understand the connection between the two. anyone who can point that out will have my gratitude.

dantodd
01-25-2010, 2:45 PM
One portion of Gura's case is the possibility of overturning the Slaughter Houses case. The fact that the court was willing to deny stare decisis to bad caselaw may mean they are more inclined to do so in this case. While an overturn of Slaughter Houses is not necessary for 2A incorporation it would be needed to grant P or I clause incorporation which is the desired result.

GrizzlyGuy
01-25-2010, 7:39 PM
Why would any media corporation give any exposure to a candidate who has stated without question that he will not do any corporation any favors at all? Wouldn't that be counter to the interests of the corporation that owns the media outlet in question, since that corporation wants any candidate that wins to be amenable to its suggestions?


No, because media companies make money by selling advertising (air time, print ads, etc.). The "bad" candidate's money is just as green as the "good" candidate's. Back during the campaign there were plenty of Obama/Biden ads running on FOXNews, and Obama is no friend to FOX.


If all media corporations behave the way that one would, by refusing to give exposure to candidates that they know will be uncooperative, isn't the end result that no candidate who is staunchly unwilling to do the bidding of corporations will receive media exposure?


See above. And, the advertising rates are dependent on ratings (more viewers/readers = higher rates). Don't forget about the power of boycotts by that candidate's supporters, and by people like us who would find that silencing policy distasteful even if Karl Marx were reincarnated and making a run for the presidency. OK, I better just speak for myself on that last one... ;)


Maybe we need a new term then.

What do you call it when the corporations of a country have complete control of the government?


An Oligarchy. Watch this video, the corporations would be the gang hanging back behind the leader in the totalitarian government example (neat video, it might surprise you that Oligarchy and Republic are the only practical/stable forms of government, Democracies are fast lanes to tyranny):

DioQooFIcgE


Yeah, I know. The FAA is the same way, and it's easy to see what has happened in the general aviation sector as a result: piston engined airplanes are still using mechanical fuel injection! And the prices are way beyond what they should be.


Yup. My perfectly good Polish-manufactured aerobatic sailplane was classified as "Experimental" just because it hadn't jumped through all of the FAA's hoops. My insurance cost more because of that, even though you wouldn't be able to tell that airplane apart from a certified one.


But that regulation is on the industry, right? In other words, if you as an individual, without the umbrella of a corporation, wish to engage in business in that industry, you will be subject to the same thing, right?

I agree, that's fascism, but worse, it's a clear violation of civil rights.

But wouldn't an individual who chooses to engage in that particular business be subject to exactly the same regulations, and thus the same search and seizure violations?

In other words, isn't this a case where individuals are no more protected than corporations are?


Yes, if you wanted to enter the FDA's domain as a sole proprietorship, the same regulations would apply. The FDA is an equal-opportunity purveyor of fascism, none of us who dare to tread in their territory are immune. Wanna make a spaghetti sauce in your kitchen and sell it? Get ready to hand over your 4A rights. :rolleyes:

Remember (paraphrasing Reagan): Government is the problem, not the solution.

kcbrown
01-25-2010, 9:40 PM
No, because media companies make money by selling advertising (air time, print ads, etc.). The "bad" candidate's money is just as green as the "good" candidate's. Back during the campaign there were plenty of Obama/Biden ads running on FOXNews, and Obama is no friend to FOX.


What makes you believe that Obama is no friend to FOX?

In any case, I thought you might bring this up. The problem here is that it assumes that the people running the media companies don't have a brain cell between them, and that they will do anything when cash is flashed in front of their face even if they know it is bad for their long term interests.

The question is: how much is the ability to influence the government in your favor worth? Considering that the media corporations have to do things like buy spectrum, deal with the FCC, etc., it seems to me that the ability to influence the government is worth a considerable amount.

Surely that has to be included in the calculations of profitability?



See above. And, the advertising rates are dependent on ratings (more viewers/readers = higher rates). Don't forget about the power of boycotts by that candidate's supporters, and by people like us who would find that silencing policy distasteful even if Karl Marx were reincarnated and making a run for the presidency. OK, I better just speak for myself on that last one... ;)
Heh.

From what I've seen, boycotts that actually yield the desired outcome are exceedingly rare.

But here's the problem: I'm not talking about a candidate who already has media exposure. Once they get media exposure then they can get broad support, because as a result of that media exposure a lot of people will suddenly know about that candidate.

I'm talking about a candidate who hasn't yet gotten any real media exposure but is running for a position. Until they get media exposure, relatively few people will know about that candidate. You can bet the major media outlets don't care at all about that candidate's supporters at that time.

A boycott is useful only if the entity being boycotted takes it seriously. I don't see why a media corporation would in the case of a candidate that has not yet received significant media exposure.



An Oligarchy. Watch this video, the corporations would be the gang hanging back behind the leader in the totalitarian government example (neat video, it might surprise you that Oligarchy and Republic are the only practical/stable forms of government, Democracies are fast lanes to tyranny):

DioQooFIcgE
OK, oligarchy it is!

Interesting that you say that an oligarchy is one of the stable forms of government, because the Wikipedia article would have you believe that there aren't very many notable examples of one, and the ones it cites aren't terribly good examples of stability.

It mentions a particular type, corporatocracy, which I think fits what I'm after very nicely. :D




Yup. My perfectly good Polish-manufactured aerobatic sailplane was classified as "Experimental" just because it hadn't jumped through all of the FAA's hoops. My insurance cost more because of that, even though you wouldn't be able to tell that airplane apart from a certified one.
Oddly enough, by having your sailplane certified "experimental", you may have avoided a lot of regulation that governs certified aircraft! Your insurance may cost more, but your maintenance and other expenses could easily compensate for that. Dunno if that would be true of sailplanes, but it's certainly true of experimental powered aircraft, since the owner is typically allowed to work on it himself without an A&P, and only needs to get an IA to sign off on the annual inspections.




Yes, if you wanted to enter the FDA's domain as a sole proprietorship, the same regulations would apply. The FDA is an equal-opportunity purveyor of fascism, none of us who dare to tread in their territory are immune. Wanna make a spaghetti sauce in your kitchen and sell it? Get ready to hand over your 4A rights. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I thought so.

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not a corporation is less protected by the 4th Amendment than an individual just by the fact that it's a corporation and nothing else. So far, all the cited examples of lack of 4A protection for corporations have nothing to do with the corporation and everything to do with the business they're engaged in. Which is to say, so far I haven't seen any examples that show that a corporation is less protected by the 4th than an individual just by the fact that it's a corporation.



Remember (paraphrasing Reagan): Government is the problem, not the solution.Ain't that the truth...

GrizzlyGuy
01-30-2010, 8:26 AM
FYI, Robert Levy (Chairman of Cato Institute) published a great article on this topic a few days ago: Campaign Finance Reform: A Libertarian Primer (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11176)

Conclusion:

The proper answer to large expenditures for speech is either more speech or, if the existing system proves unworkable, a constitutional amendment. As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech.