I have a solution that I’ve posted before here and it requires no constitutional revision.

1) Any particular day, a corporate tax on gross earnings of 50% goes into effect.

2) One year later, the corporate tax rate becomes 70%.

3) Another year later, the corporate tax rate is increased to 90%.

Finally, in the last year, any corporations left standing are abolished completely. The advantage of this method is that corporations, through the increased taxes paid, effectively finance their own demise.

felicity

Paradoxically,the ethical dehumanization and depersonalization of our economic system is entirely due to the personalizing of an abstract business unit, the cell of the capitalist body.
It is Orwellian dystopia.

RayLan - Unlike other ‘persons,’ “corporations have
no business engaging in socially beneficial acts -
THEY HAVE NO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - they are only
responsible for making as much profit as possible…” 
Milton Friedman - the god before whom all good
capitalists bow.

If that isn’t a rationale justifying the recent
criminal activities of, at least, our financial
sector, I don’t know what would be. (Needless to say,
if the rest of the ‘persons’ out here operated as
corporations are literally sanctioned to operate, we
would have collapsed as a society long ago.)

Self serving corporations seen from my short sifted point of view to be just another slightly different slant caucus with more rights than they deserve.  I suppose corporations do not get to vote so they buy votes?  Corporations remind me of religious organizations,  with their own set of tax breaks and their own overlord popes. 

One could add bureaucracy to the list of self perpetuating entities which seem to be self serving.  I wonder, is it just plan old human nature to grow as big and powerful as one can through whatever means possible? 

Monopoly is not just a board game.

Note that the political documentary The Corporation, points out that as persons, corporationsthey exhibit many symptoms that could merit a diagnosis of psychotic behavior, specifically (1) callous unconcern for the feelings of others, (2) incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, (3) reckless disregard for the safety of others, (4) deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit, (5) incapacity to experience guilt, (6) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. If Haldane is right, then one or more people in charge of the corporation would have to be the locus of the psychotic personality. Other issues are raised as well, such as (these are meant as philosophical, not legal, questions): are corportations individuals, and if so in what sense? do they have repsonsibilities to other corporations? do corporations have responsibilities to individual people? do individual people have responsibilities to corporations?
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/06-07/Phil285/index.html

It occured to me that corporations have the same characteristics as the Right wing. Greed without a conscience and protected by law.

I saw the movie “Juristic Park” I believe the connotation had something to do with Republican compassion and the Republican ability to know exactly what people need, according to Republican cloned logic,..... hence something like dinosaurs.

By Lafayette, January 26 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Your post is so full of mistruths that it would be hard to address them all, but I do have time to address these three:

1.  Please read the definition of “juristic person” again, in the context of the thread.  It is a well established term which you should have no problem finding. 

2.  Corporations were in existence well before the founding of the USA.  The Dutch East India Company was a corporation started close to 200 years prior to the Constitution. 

3.  Corporations are certainly not limited to what you call “commercial speech”, as many, many corporations are not commercial entities, but may be charitable, religious, political, fraternal, etc, etc.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Like any political/social construct, corporate charters are simply agreed upon rules of law and codes of conduct that create a framework of human interactions for a defined purpose. They exist as an “Ideal” (freedom, prosperity, business, spirituality). Human moral reason defines and shapes these agreements, and there are consequences for violation of their prescribed codes, laws and conduct.

    Our problem is the seeming total moral bankruptcy, not only of those violating the agreed upon codes and laws, but those sworn to enforce them. What do we do with that reality? The blame isn’t that of a signed document but those who knowingly violate their sworn oath to uphold it. If there is no justice, in what reality do we exist? Attempted definition of that question seems to be the core of most articles, discussions and comments here at TRUTHDIG.

    Is there or isn’t there a way forward for a people trapped inside an immoral void? If so, where is the path to action? If not, where is the path to survival for human worth and dignity?

Citizens United actually diminishes the voting rights of human beings.  Corporations can’t vote, but allowing them to influence the vote by giving them unlimited contribution rights is obscene. Corporations can then dictate who will be a candidate, who will have the resources to run and who won’t. I will therefore have to vote the people that corporations have anointed! 

This law also makes campaign finance reform unlikely. The more a candidate has to depend on corporate funding to run and get elected, the more likely that the candidate will be beholden to specific corporate interests over human interests. The Tea Party is a corporate product.  Health care reform—real reform—is impossible because the industry “pays” too many of our elected officials.

How can I, an average voter with average income, compete with Big Money?  I donate $100 to a candidate; a corporation has a budget of a million dollars to invest in campaign contributions.  Why should I even donate?  What difference does it make?

I think the argument should focus on how this ruling belittles voter rights is also valid.

Fat Freddy - I ‘get’ most of what you’ve been saying
- but I still can’t figure out if you’re a dyed-in-
the-wool pragmatist or a pie-in-the-sky idealist. 
Either way, I’d argue that there is no such thing as
‘a level playing field.’  We’re not born on one
(chances are we won’t die on one either) and never
will be. 

As I’ve said before one of the functions of
government is to do for us what we can’t do for
ourselves.  Most think of grand things like build our
own private railroads or create and maintain our own
private police departments but, in the world of
business, say, some will succeed (because they were
born smarter, savvier, shrewder - and probably
white…) while others were born, basically
disadvantaged.

Do you have a solution to this basic fact of real
life.  Do we just say tough luck, and sheer luck is
what it usually is or do we make the playing field
more level.  (It’s not like this is a ‘new’ problem
as it’s been plaguing mankind since the advent of
mankind.)

FF:
Excellent question!  And the answer is: I don’t buy stock in companies I don’t like, and if they turn, or if my broker buys me into companies I don’t like (like Monsanto), I sell them.

But does that have an effect on them? No. Does Monsanto give a shit while they are suing some farmer for inadvertently growing their corn that blew over from his neighbor? No.

The idea of a “legal person” is what the courts call a right of corporations.  Whether you, or I agree, is, in fact, not relevant. Your definition of what a corporation should be is simultaneously appropriate, idealistic, and, sadly, unrealistic.

However, your repugnance toward Monsanto, Halliburton, Verizon, etc, is welcome—for the right reasons.

Fat Freddy

I like your logo.

Does the “V” stand for Vacuous?

One more reason to wish we had moved to Vermont instead of Maine!!!!! Boo hoo!!!!!

Maine, now wholly owned and operated by the Heritage Foundation.

Far Freddy - I know you didn’t but SCOTUS did.  It
probably launched this balloon tying corporations and
persons together, that is, with the same ‘rights’
according to the big C. when they ruled that ‘speech
is money’ and since speech is free (basically
unlimited), money (campaign contributions) should not
be limited.

I learned something last night, believe it or not,
that is, some corporations pay huge taxes while
others of equal size or greater pay none.  This might
support your argument that government should stay
basically out of the corporate system.

Be still my beating heart!  That Vermont might pass this law is such a silver lining in an otherwise bleak moment in our time! WOW Vermont.. you go! and maybe it could be the beginning of a groundswell.  Pay attention State Senators , and grass roots organizations!  We are rooting for you Vermont! Lead the way to sanity.

Just for clarification. When I speak of “special privileges” granted to corporations, I am not speaking of privileges that are granted to all corporations. It is not a special privilege to enter into private contract to form a corporation That is a Natural Right. The special privileges I speak of, are privileges granted to specific, individual corporations. That is what needs to be eliminated, IMO. The farm subsidies to ADM, the patents to Pharma and Monsanto, the no-bid contracts to Haliburton, the “negative tax rates” awarded to Verizon, and others. It is the individual corporations that donate to receive specific, special privileges. If a corporation can donate $5,000, and receive a 10% reduction on the 35% corporate tax rate they are required to pay that saves them $10,000, that is a special privilege to that corporation, and it gives them an unfair competitive advantage.

I will defend the right of corporations, and all businesses to exist to my last breath, but I refuse to accept the government setting rules and regulations that specifically benefit a select, few. Which is why I say eliminate the government, altogether, and “force” all businesses to compete on a level playing field. The government can’t help itself. There are many in government that feel they are helping the whole of the country when they give out these privileges, for things like “job creation”, and green energy, and more efficient and destructive weapons systems. They may have good intentions, but the end result is always the same.

They may actually be better off passing a law that says “if corporations want to be people, they must be treated like people.” You can’t put them in jail but you can take them off the market, which is effectively the same, and you can put the CEOs in jail.

But as well you can make corporations adhere to stronger shareholder protections. See http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/12/06/wisconsin-should-take-the-lead/

Thank you Kenneth Lane…..can’t think of anything to add at the moment that would not include 100’s of “dirty” words.

YOU GO VERMONT!

Inherit The Wind

Well then, that begs the question, why do you own stock? If you feel helpless in the control or direction of a company, and the company is going in a direction you do not agree with, why bother owning stock in that company? For the money? Are you a greedy Capitalist?

felicity

I did not call corporations “persons”. I called them a group of individuals, bound by private contract, who seek common interests.

I did not use the word “person”, or “personhood”.

So, you want power? Power to do what? Force others to do what they don’t want to do through coercion? You can’t have power over others, and freedom. You contradict yourself. When people have “power”, they have control over others, and that means they have power over you. Democracy is collectivist. It’s not as collectivist as Communism, or a Monarchy, but, when an individual is forced to sacrifice, or be sacrificed, the individual loses his or her rights for the “good” of the whole.

Money only has “power” because the government has power. The government can legally initiate the use of force over its citizens, or the threat of force.  Because government has that power, it can be bought, sometimes for money, sometimes for other things. By eliminating the ability of the government to initiate force on its citizens, you eliminate the power of government, then there’s no power for sale. Money becomes merely a universally accepted means of exchange of goods and services. Because the government can initiate force against its citizens, and the initiation of force is “immoral”, the government is an immoral entity. Corporations derive their power from government. When corporations are “forced” to operate on a level playing field with individuals, and smaller businesses, they will fail.

I would never want to deny individuals the right to form a corporation through private contract, but in a free market system, it would be inadvisable.

Here’s part of the reason why:

“As entrepreneurs innovate, they reap economic rewards. Production then expands and new forms of economic organization emerge, such as the modern firm, which grows to capture economic opportunities. As the size of the firm increases, so too does its bureaucracy. The functions of ownership and control gradually separate. Eventually, the owners find that their connection to, and knowledge of, the economic process has been severed. They lose the ability to see the necessity of social institutions, such as private ownership and voluntary contract - institutions without which there would be no economic progress. Isolated from economic reality, their sympathy for the capitalist system begins to wane, and, with it, the social support for the institutions that form the foundation of capitalism. These render the capitalist system open to attack from hostile parties.”

- Joseph Schumpeter Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy

In effect, corporations are their own worst enemy, and without government support, they would become too big to fail exist competitively with smaller, innovative and more efficient businesses.

Leefeller

It’s no secret I believe in a “Stateless Society” Without a State, there are no politicians, and no democracy. Without the State, and only “voluntary associations”, there would be no corporations, at least not like what we have today. Corporations have what seems to be endless privileges from government. Grants, defense contracts, subsidies, patents, etc. Not to mention fraudulent banking and monetary laws and manipulations of the markets. But without all of those special privileges, the US would not be #1.

USA! USA! USA!

FF:

As a share-holder of a corporation, with my 100 or 200 shares, I have even less say in the election of officers than I do in the Presidential election.  Why? because large blocs of votes are controlled by…as you put it, trust funds and mutual funds.  They are not controlled by the conviction of the voters, but because each share is a vote. You think a CEO will listen to me? No, but he’ll listen to Fidelity, T.Rowe, and, of course, Goldman, Sachs, even more than the President. He MAY listen to an outside Wall Street analyst, but only because the analyst has the ear of….Fidelity, T.Rowe, etc.

While you are right about the difference between torts and credit liabilities, that difference is not relevant to the question of corporate person-hood.  Investors, and corporate officers are shielded from both—and THAT is the point.

Lafayette

An “association” is a group of individuals. If you deny rights to the group, you also deny rights to the individuals that make up that group. That is very well established. Groups have rights under the Constitution, as well as individuals. Whether that group is a group of concerned mothers, a labor union, or a business, makes no difference, IMO. If you are going to deny one group certain rights and privileges, you must deny all groups. Are you willing to deny labor unions the right to donate money, as well? How about professional organizations, like the AMA and trial lawyers? You can’t simply rule out “corporations” because you don’t like them.

This entire debate is starting from the wrong point. It shouldn’t be whether groups should, or should not be allowed to donate money, it should be whether or not politicians can accept money from these groups, or anyone. But politicians will never place restrictions on themselves, only on others.

In effect, a limitation on donations to a campaign can be viewed as a rule saying, to a candidate, “If you accept $$ in the following manner, you may not hold this office.” Viewed this way, the regulations are not a limit on the freedom of the donors, but on the rights of the recipient to hold office–but since no one has a right to hold office, this is not objectionable–or at least, not as objectionable as limitations on free speech or the right-to-donate-money.Of course, such reasoning cannot be used to prevent donations of money to an independent group not controlled by the candidate.

http://blog.mises.org/10646/whats-wrong-with-campaign-finance-regulations/

Also, it’s not just about free speech, it’s about private property rights. The property being money. Does an individual, or a group, have a right to do what they want with their property/money? Are we going to start telling people what they can, or can not do, with their own money? How far are we wiling to take this? The ways in which politicians raise money is what should be at issue, and whether they should be allowed to raise money, at all.

Inherit The Wind

AS a shareholder, you have certain rights as defined by the corporate bylaws. If you do not like the direction the corporation is taking, you can usually vote to change the members of the Board of Directors. The CEO and upper management get their directions from the Board. The Board hires and fires the CEO and corporate officers. A big, big problem, as I see it, is the major shareholders of most of the big corporations are asset management companies, that sell ETFs, and operate mutual funds and hedge funds. When an investor buys into one of theses devices, he receives the financial benefits of the corporations in the funds, but the investment firm retains the shareholder rights. Good for you that you actually bought stock, and not some bullshit ETF.

I’m not a bankruptcy attorney, but I believe the courts do make distinctions between liabilities on torts and and liabilities on outstanding debts to creditors. Whether or not that should be the case, is open for debate, but I think the case law is well established.

NEW TRAILS FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Spook: There is nothing scary about the concept of a corporation as a “juristic person”

Oh, yes there is. Are you blazing New Trails for the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech?

Or are you yet another who is rewriting the dictionary. Look up the word “juristic”. You employ a word of which you are evidently ignorant. (A “juristic person” is someone who is an expert in law. Unless you are claiming that qualification as well?)

The notion of Freedom of Speech is restricted to individuals. When individuals associate to form corporations, the act of incorporation does not ascribe to the company any particular Freedom of Speech apart from Commercial Speech. 

Corporate “freedom of speech” is limited to “commercial speech” only. You would be wise to see that limitation as explained here.

Freedom of Personal Speech is, indeed, unlimited and protected by the First Amendment. To a degree that is unique to the United States.

But nowhere in the First Amendment text is it extended to an entity created solely by a contractual agreement. Besides, our founding fathers (and those who wrote the First Amendment, ratified in 1789) had no real understanding of the notion of incorporation. It did no exist in 1776. The only such entity extant was a “chartered company”, that was employed by royal privilege for the purpose of colonization.

I doubt seriously that the founders of this nation would have had any intent of giving that entity any freedoms of speech.

Furthermore, whilst you are in the process of personal edification, you would be wise to read the definition of “corporation” here.

COMMERCIAL SPEECH

This is employed for commercial purposes, but is highly regulated as to its content.

Corporations are also called upon by Congress to give their opinion regarding legislation by means of events called Congressional “hearings”. Unfortunately that privilege also has been abused - sufficiently to create an entirely new industry, most of which is located on K-street in Washington.

It is a highly effective instrument employed upon a feckless and avaricious political class. That We, the People elected and that We, the People can un-elect ... should we ever return to a semblance of Common Sense.

POST SCRIPTUM

The Supreme Court decision that created corporate personhood will be almost certainly be voided by a future Supreme Court - the present Court was “making law” not “interpreting law”.

But when? Only time will tell ...

Before you all break out the champagne, keep in mind that this is only a “resolution” “proposing an amendment” to the Constitution.  Given that most states have GOP govs now, it is HIGHLY unlikely that other states will pass similar resolutions…much less that it would lead to the creation of an actual Constitutional Amendment to be voted on…MUCH LESS that the GOP House and fractured Senate would PASS such an amendment…MUCH LESS that those selfsame GOP states would RATIFY such an Amendment.

This is a wonderful “symbolic” gesture…but that’s ALL it is.

Peace.

So…let me see if I’ve got this straight: The modern so-called “Conservative” is…
1) Passionate about the “rights” of the unborn
2) Passionate about the “rights” of corporations
3) Utterly indifferent to the rights of living, breathing citizens (and supports the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the revised FISA)

Got it.  Corporations and the unborn have sacrosanct rights.  Citizens don’t (except the right to keep and bear arms).

A corporation is a “legal enity” defined as
“an individual or organization which is legally permitted to enter into a contract, and be sued if it fails to meet its contractual obligations”

An individual or “natural person” is a legal entity.  A corporation or “juristic person” is also a legal entity.  There is a big difference.  Look it up. 

There is nothing scary about the concept of a corporation as a “juristic person” 

A corporation, whether a non-profit, for profit, commercial, non-commercial, charitable, religious or otherwise, has no more rights as a juristic person than a group of people who organize under some other form of legal organization for the above purposes.

The individuals who form these groups have a constitutional right to speak their opinions with one voice, and spend all their money doing it.  Just like George Soros or Bill Gates have the right to speak their opinion and spend all their money doing it. 

The idea that groups of people can pool their money and incorporate to have a louder voice is not a bad thing, it is an opportunity for the small guys to be heard as loud as the big guys. 

Large and small groups of people, incorporated or not, speaking with one voice and publicizing their opinions is a crucial element of democracy.  This is to be encouraged, not repressed. 

Besides, if you remove the legal entity (juristic person) status from a corporation, you essentially dissolve the organization outright.  Would you do that to all corporations, or just the ones you don’t like?

But wait?

Maybe we could draft Microsoft or the UAW for our next
war?

A LEVEL OF IDIOCY

FF: The most basic definition of a modern firm is: a group of individuals, bound by private contract, who seek common interests. People have a Natural Right to do this. In the Bill of Rights, it’s referred to as Freedom of Assembly. 

You writing your own dictionary?

Corporation = an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. Key word: “association”.

Association = 1. a group of people organized for a joint purpose. 2 a connection or cooperative link between people or organizations.

Citizen =  a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth.

Where in the above definitions is the logical link be corporation and citizen? Unless you are trying to stretch the meaning of the phrase “corporate citizen” for your own bizarre purposes.

Corporations are contractual entities in foundation that exist by law and not in person.

No modern country on earth, except the US Supreme Court, considers a corporation to have the rights of citizenship or, for that matter, “personhood”.

If one looks hard enough, however, maybe a Banana Republic would stoop to such a level of idiocy.

This isn’t Campaign Finance Reform but it might be a start. Regulation and oversight of Corporate Charters to monitor liability and damage to social/human environments and structures (ground water poisoning-cancer-environmental catastrophe-labor rights-etc.) could shift the balance of power toward sane human moral reason/values. Corporations as they are today represent a “bullet proof” vest for criminal enterprise. The subversion of our Constitutional Democracy by Corporate cash is obscene.

    Having been a small business owner myself I sometimes sympathize with FAT FRED. Personal responsibility and hard work amount to a kind of “spirituality”. It’s empowering, and if one is willing to pay the dues, offers a liberating freedom and independence. I am happy that pockets of “free enterprise” still thrive. But, I believe Corporate criminality is knowingly destroying those same pockets of independence FRED defends.

    I get frustrated when we attempt to discuss Washington as “viable”. It’s an out-and-out criminal enterprise. Vermont is standing and we should stand with her. Local activism (where we live) is the best next step.

Corporations can be viewed as evolved life forms, complete with Darwinian
survival instincts. Human beings in the corporation’s employ operate as
individual cells within that organism, whose purpose is to serve the higher
functions (profitability) of the corporation. Those cells that impede the profit
function (by prioritizing society, for example) will be identified and actively
expunged by other cells driven by their own survival instincts. The organism
accedes to human needs only when such concessions are deemed necessary for
the corporation’s long term survival.

Since its organizational principal is profit, by definition the corporation has no
regard for society other than those which optimize profitability, and no
responsibilities toward society other than those which society itself sees fit (or
is able) to impose by force of law.

In a corporatocracy, it will be argued that the well-being of the corporation and
that of society are one and the same. As the corporation prospers, so do its
cells, who are, after all, members of society. In this narrative, corporate
behavior is moderated by market forces.

But it’s evident that this narrative is a fiction. The old invisible hand might work
in a village, but in a globalized economy, market forces are all too easily gamed
and manipulated. And while members of the corporate elite are nominally part
of society, it is clearly not the same society most of us live in. Our gated
communities stand as testament to this.

Given the evidence, it’s hard to view corporations as anything other than social
parasites. Yes , there is some symbiosis to be sure, but in the era of
hypercapitalism, the corporation will (must) kill off its host (the middle class) if
it can migrate to another more profitable one. To do anything less would be as
improbable as a lion choosing a diet of fruit and vegetables. Like any other
creature, the corporation is literally incapable of acting contrary to its evolved
primary function.

That’s the “person” we’re dealing with.

YES YES YES AND THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN EVERY STATE,
NOT PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE YES PEOPLE FIRST,
Corporations last if at all. Thank YOU VERMONT,
please lead the way.F_ck those corporations, most are
traitors, send jobs millions of jobs to COMMUNIST
CHINA, and leave the Americas who originally made
those corporations, unemployed at the mercy of Drugs.
All those jobs along the border, sent over seas, lots
of unemployment no the drug cartel takes over.
Another self inflicted wound, Corporate dictatorship
leads to GLOBAL SLAVERY. Get in Street and F_ck those
corporations, burn down Mac Donalds burn down coke
cola, BURN IT ALL DOWN. John BROWN´S body lies bottom
of the grave. His truth keeps marching on.

The Off shore international grand scheme of things, used the Chamberpot to funnel funding in the last election as persons too, so what is so hard to grasp?

Interesting strategy - gets right to the heart of the problem - which is why it will not happen.

Fats wrote;

“Yes, corporations are granted special privileges by government, that are not encompassed in the Constitution. But you can not, and must not, trample the Constitution, and Natural Law, to eliminate those special privileges. Those special privileges were enacted through the democratic process, and must be removed though the democratic process. If they can not be removed by the democratic process, then Democracy must be removed, or they must be accepted by the people.”

Attempted sarcasm or a dig at ITW?

Well that is why we have an impractical supreme court and a conspiring president and a democratic Republican Legislature.

Fats quote above makes nonsense seem coherent, I shall partake in copious amounts of Tequila then reread it for charity of me minds sake.

“Democracy has run aground”, yeah…. back when Greece was playing with Trojans and horses.  Using the word Democracy as if it is a Democracy seems to be what Bush lauded he was doing in to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fats second post on responsibility of CEO’s seems slightly coherent enough, but from what I have seen responsibility as in accountability seems a weak long shot as in absent for those in positions of power. .....Golden cahoots anyone!

FF:

You haven’t contradicted me. Liability insurance is irrelevant—the corporation is liable, but not the individuals.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a torte or a debt—only the corp is responsible.

It is VERY possible for a corporation to be convicted of a crime—happens all the time.  It is MORE unusual for a corporate officer to be convicted, even when the evidence is blatant, as it was in Mr. Scrushy’s case.  Mr. Skilling was, to be honest, the sacrificial lamb to protect Ken Lay’s ass while he claimed ignorance (as did Scrushy).

Your point about organizations being able to work together under “free speech” is well-taken—but a corporation is NOW taking the money of its share-holders, deciding (usually in secret) what it will spend it on in a campaign.

Now, as a shareholder, I want corporate money spent on development, production and sales, not political activities.  Instead of spending billions on political campaigns, that money should either be re-invested or distributed as a dividend.  In fact, the need of the corporation is NOW at odds with the needs and rights of the shareholders.

Furthermore, international corporations that either are based off-shore or pretend to be (like the cruise lines) are NOT entitled to anything resembling the liberties US Citizens enjoy.  Certainly participation in our election process should be strictly barred.

Fat Freddy - Corporations are legal fictions, get
that, fictions - nothing more than bundles of
contractual agreements.  To call a corporation a
person is to call a person a fiction - nothing more
than bundles of contractual agreements.

I look forward to some on the SCOTUS arguing that a
corporation is a human being if a person is a human
being since a corporation is a person, has
‘personhood.’

You have your ‘take’ on a democracy and here’s mine: 
A democracy is a system of government in which all
citizens of the society have equal access to power
and all citizens enjoy universally recognized freedom
and liberties. 

It’s the “all citizens of the society have equal
access to power” that makes democracy as pie-in-the-
sky-never-going-to-happen as communism is pie-in-the-
sky because it completely discounts basic human
behavior as even existing.  However, the recent Court
decision definitely increases the ‘access to power’
of the corporation which in a sense decreases my
access to power which is why it is just one more nail
in the coffin that our democracy is in.

ITW,

Your take on limited liability is slightly off. Limited liability applies to outstanding debt to creditors, not liability for torts. Liability for torts, is usually covered by liability insurance. Of course, there are upper limits on the amount. Criminal liability, is yet another. Jeffrey Skilling is in prison because he intentionally misled investors by engaging in accounting control fraud. That’s criminal liability.

I am a sole proprietor. That means my personal finances, and business finances are the same. Any debts incurred by my business, are also incurred by me, personally. If I were to incorporate my business, my business finances and personal finances would be separate. I would need to draw a salary from the business. If I incorporated my business, and took money, or property from my business without declaring it, I would be guilty of tax evasion, and fraud to my creditors. The business is a separate entity. That is where corporate personhood begins.

Of course, things start getting more complicated when you have full partners, limited partners, shareholders, and bond holders.

In technical terms, limited liability is a “designation”. It tells potential creditors that owners, partners and shareholders will not be held personally liable for any outstanding debts of the company. A creditor can choose to accept this, or not.

The problem with corporations, is the separation of ownership and management. A CEO is just a paid employee of the company, that has the authority to conduct a company’s day to day operations. He is given special permission by the Board of Directors to do things that would normally require an owner’s prior approval.

So, the question becomes, when there is foul play, who exactly do you hold responsible? The CEO, the Board, or the shareholders? Or, all of the above? It’s not simple, and there are no easy answers.

The author, and the politicians in Vermont have some strange definitions of what a corporation is. The most basic definition of a modern firm is: a group of individuals, bound by private contract, who seek common interests. People have a Natural Right to do this. In the Bill of Rights, it’s referred to as Freedom of Assembly.

Here’s the problem, if you deny a group of people, who have formed a corporation certain rights, you MUST deny ALL groups those same rights. You can not, and must not, pick and choose which groups are “allowed” to do certain things, and which are not.

Yes, corporations are granted special privileges by government, that are not encompassed in the Constitution. But you can not, and must not, trample the Constitution, and Natural Law, to eliminate those special privileges. Those special privileges were enacted through the democratic process, and must be removed though the democratic process. If they can not be removed by the democratic process, then Democracy must be removed, or they must be accepted by the people.

In my opinion, it is Democracy which has run aground. Democracy is nothing more than a majority of individuals forcing their Will on the minority. The smallest minority is the individual.

Corporate “personhood” was established for one reason and one reason only: to protect corporate stock-holders from liability in the event the corporation must pay for a fine or a lost (or settled) law-suit. Period.

It actually makes sense and should be retained. If I buy stock in Ford, and Ford has to pay up for its exploding Pinto gas tanks, I’m isolated from liability.

It was then extended to protect the corporate officers and board of directors, even though they are the ones guiding the company and should be personally responsible for any malfeasance.  There were two justifications for this:
1) Malfeasance can occur that the officers cannot control (eg,an employee assaults a client) but the corporation is still legally liable.
2) Directors on the board of directors will be impossible to recruit unless they are protected.

A safety valve was inserted in the laws: Piercing the Corporate Veil.  That’s to allow the officers or even the stock-holders to be personally liable under certain conditions, namely actively promoting the malfeasance.

But that was where the law’s granting of legal person status stopped, and should have STAYED stopped.

Yet next it was extended to tax and criminal liability. While in theory, the corporate veil can be pierced, in practice it’s very, very hard to get a conviction, as Richard Scrushy of Health South and Rick Scott of HCA, both being acquitted of various criminal charges, including Medicare fraud, shows. 

But how can a corporation cheat on its taxes without the officers being complicit?  How can a corporation engage in massive fraud without its officers being complicit?

Then the next step: Full legal rights including participating in the democratic process which was never what the laws were EVER intended to provide. The officers and owners of the corporation, if American citizens, are welcome to participate in democratic government, but should only be able to do so as individuals, not hiding behind the corporate veil.

I once worked for a large corporation that tried to force its employees to contribute to its PAC, which supported right-wingers like Jesse Helms and Alfonse D’Amato.  The pressure was quite intense.  I wasn’t there long, especially after “corporate” cooked employee review scores so they wouldn’t have to give us as big raise as the score schedule indicated. (why unions are still relevant).

Funny. The one type of corporation that the Right wants to exclude from corporate person-hood is the ONLY one that serves employees and other workers: Unions.

Finally, legislation which means something.

Virginia Lyons for president.

It seems to me, person hood should be banned, then the corporations would have their cake and eat it too!

Now, where is that Chamber Pot when you need it? Overseas rounding up funding for the next big push?

Well, I am so glad the Supreme Court is not politically motivated, maybe there is some hope after all.

****************

Excellent. Great definitions and points. Hope it carries. Hope it
gathers steam in all 50 states. I hope it works along with the
impeachment of all the supreme court justices who voted for
the decision. Never has there been such a treasonous decision
made into law by a branch of our government that was created
to protect the citizens.