Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations.

• IggyPride00

  

  Also this decision affects all groups not just corporations. Unions, NRA, Sierra Club, etc.

  I read an interesting statistic that said in 2008 I think it was that between them the Fortune 100 firms had a combined profit of $650 billion.
  
  Let's just imagine 1% of that made its way into an election cycle from just that group. It is really staggering in that respect to think about how different these elections are going to be with such a monster pool of money now in play at an unlimited supply.
  
  Unions, the NRA and any other organization is trivial when contrasted against the resources possessed by the countries biggest corporations.
• fan_from_texas

  BCSbunk wrote: They are NOT humans and are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.
  
  This shit is not going to fly. Right now an amendment to the Constitution is being worked on.
  
  . . .
  
  Look for a much needed amendment to fix this bullshit.
  
  Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech to HUMANS and not paper entities.

  You do realize you're arguing in the face of about 250 years of case law, right? We've treated corporate entities as legal persons for centuries. Just because you started paying attention to it this morning doesn't mean it hasn't been around forever. The idea of getting rid of a corporation's legal personhood is ludicrous for all sorts of practical purposes. You can argue that you want to limit a corporation's rights--fine, sure, whatever--but to eliminate corporate personhood is inane and stupid.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote: All of you against this decision. What about large media conglomerates? Many of you bitch about biased media outlets. Should they be limited as well? After all corporations are behind them as well. Where to you think Hannity or Olberman get the funding to voice their political opinions. Why should other corporations whose business isn't media be treated differently?
  
  Also this decision affects all groups not just corporations. Unions, NRA, Sierra Club, etc.

  They are NOT humans and are NOT mentioned in the Constitution.
  
  This shit is not going to fly. Right now an amendment to the Constitution is being worked on.
  
  What is next the corporations get to vote?
  
  http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/amendment_campaigns_launch.php
  
  Look for a much needed amendment to fix this bullshit.
  
  Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech to HUMANS and not paper entities.

  You are not answering my question. Lets take Hannity. He is funded by "non human" as you say, corporations. They pay him, provide him a studio, and brodcast his opinions to millions. What is the difference between this and funding an add.
  
  You also did not aswer may question about groups who, as you say , are not humans. Take the NRA. Should they be stopped as well?
  
  Congress shall make no law to abridge free speech to HUMANS and not paper entities
  
  Bold is in the constitution.
  Italics is not.

  No kidding???? I added what the amendment will be changed to.
  
  No paper entity should have the same rights as humans. There need to be limitations. The NRA is a non-profit group and not Microsoft or the other corporations out there.
  
  Here is more information on how corporations were originally limited and how they have fought tooth and nail to gain control of this country and now the political field.
  http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
  
  On the question about Hannity. Hannity is giving HIS opinions. Now what needs to be addressed is corporations that are not media outlets.
  
  Which are the vast majority. However they do have similar interests and few of them are good for the people.
  
  They can all band together and endorse their own shills. Most corporations are not going to put people in that do not have their interests in mind.
  
  Next I will told that corporations should be able to vote.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Ok, I have to quote Team America:
  
  "Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money. "
  
  I'd make another quote, but even on this board's more liberal rules it probably isn't appropriate, but for those that have seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm leery of it. It is a slippy slope. Well, I just hope the supports love political ads, because we are going to see more and more of them now.
  
  While the corporations cannot give to specific candidates, they can still do the next best thing, put out a multimillion dollar ad bashing the other guy.
  
  While it is free speech, it has the potential to drownout rational and reasonable thought.
• eersandbeers

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm leery of it. It is a slippy slope. Well, I just hope the supports love political ads, because we are going to see more and more of them now.
  
  While the corporations cannot give to specific candidates, they can still do the next best thing, put out a multimillion dollar ad bashing the other guy.
  
  While it is free speech, it has the potential to drownout rational and reasonable thought.

  
  
  I thought this ruling opened up for corporations to donate to political candidates. Just not just in the form of ads which I have no problem with.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "I read an interesting statistic that said in 2008 I think it was that between them the Fortune 100 firms had a combined profit of $650 billion."
  
  I could be wrong, but that seems low, ExxonMobile by itself did about $45 billion.
• majorspark

  

  IggyPride00 wrote: I read an interesting statistic that said in 2008 I think it was that between them the Fortune 100 firms had a combined profit of $650 billion.
  
  Let's just imagine 1% of that made its way into an election cycle from just that group. It is really staggering in that respect to think about how different these elections are going to be with such a monster pool of money now in play at an unlimited supply.
  
  Unions, the NRA and any other organization is trivial when contrasted against the resources possessed by the countries biggest corporations.

  So you are worried about money in politics. Projected income to our federal politicians fiscal 2010 is 2.38 trillion. That is still not enough for them so they will borrow 1.17 trillion more. Makes that imagined 6.5 billion look like chump change.
  
  Maybe the federal government should get a little smaller. The federal government is a big part of this problem. I am not saying every corporations motives will be pure. But the government denying certain groups from funding adds is wrong. The theme of the constitution is the limitation of the federal government, not preventing a group of citizens from funding an ad because we think it will corrupt our government. I got news for you guys corporations are not a necessary ingredient for political corruption. All you need is coruptable human characters and political power.
• eersandbeers

  majorspark wrote:
  Maybe the federal government should get a little smaller. The federal government is a big part of this problem. I am not saying every corporations motives will be pure. But the government denying certain groups from funding adds is wrong. The theme of the constitution is the limitation of the federal government, not preventing a group of citizens from funding an ad because we think it will corrupt our government. I got news for you guys corporations are not a necessary ingredient for political corruption. All you need is coruptable human characters and political power.

  
  I have no problem with the funding ads part. I have a problem with the unlimited funding of political campaigns in general.
  
  This increases the power corporations play in this country by a great deal. If we weren't a country ruled by corporate interests before, we definitely are now.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Up until recently, corporations were very much shielded from legal issues."
  
  That is news to me and the litigation departments of Vault 100 law firms, who are they suing or defending against? On a good day I can run by the PhillipMorris headquarters on West Broad Street in Henrico County, Virginia. How often were they shielded from legal issues? They are constantly facing legal issues, incorporation doesn't prevent you from legal actions. What is "recently"? Do you just make stuff up?

  I am a lot older than you and laws have changed. Prior to LLC, many sole proprietors incorporated to (mainly sub s or s-corp's) in order to shield themselves from many different legal issues.
  
  The laws have evolved whereby now their is more accountability for the heads of CEO's. It was common practice for small corporate heads to drain their assets into their personal accounts, and then bankrupting their company....walking away with hundreds of thousands and stiffing suppliers for similar amounts.
  
  I should know. I owned both a sole proprietorship and now own an LLC.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  That made zero sense. What laws were passed in the last few decades that allowed for lawsuits against incorporated businesses? It has always been that way.
• Footwedge

  Bin Ladin Inc. can influence American elections now. Since corporations are now people, I will vote Exxon Mobil for pres and Wall Mart for VP.
  
  Everybody wanted less political outside force....more campaign reform...until today when the Republican judges made their ruling.
  
  And as expected, the partisan hacks on the far right all agree that this is somehow good for America. It's like clockwork.
• eersandbeers

  Footwedge wrote:
  
  And as expected, the partisan hacks on the far right all agree that this is somehow good for America. It's like clockwork.

  
  It is hilarious to watch the sheeple scream yay for the death of whatever political power the American people still had left.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Well this sheeple person would like to know when laws were changed that allowed for entities to have their own existence. It certainly didn't happen in the last 10 years!
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: That made zero sense. What laws were passed in the last few decades that allowed for lawsuits against incorporated businesses? It has always been that way.

  Look dude..it might make zero sense to you, but that's what happened.
  
  Like I said above. I had a sole proprietirship for a long time. Many other businesses chose subchapter S. The upside...they had many legal
  advantages in protecting themselves personally.
  
  Then, LLC's which had been very popular in England for a long time, was brought over here about 15 years ago.
  
  Prior to 1995, there were virtually no ABC LLC's. Now there are tons of LLC's.
  
  To open up a sole proprietoship, the funding was was dirt cheap. Licensing and fees were within a couple hundred bucks. S-Corp cost around 2 grand back twenty years ago.
  
  LLC provides the same or very similar protections that S-Corp did. But my LLC only cost me about 600 bucks.
  
  And no offense here, but it's quite surprising to me that you, being a business consultant, are so unfamiliar with the basic ABC's of how businesses are set up.
  
  Moreover, I'm sure FFT will confirm what I say.
• fan_from_texas

  Um, I can confirm that LLCs are a fairly recent invention, but so what? That's not responsive to Manhattan's question. An LLC didn't change the legal status of an incorporated sole proprietorship--S corp, C corp, LLC, LLP, PC, whatever--they're all "corporate" entities in the sense that they have corporate personhood as a legal fiction. Introducing a new type of one affects taxes and default rules, but it doesn't have anything to do with Manhattan's question.
  
  What laws were passed in the past few decades that suddenly allowed companies to be sued? They've been able to be sued forever.
  
  It sounds like you're talking about corporate veil piercing. Again, that's been around for a century or so--it's nothing that has changed in the past decade.
  
  What are you talking about?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "To open up a sole proprietoship, the funding was was dirt cheap. Licensing and fees were within a couple hundred bucks. S-Corp cost around 2 grand back twenty years ago."
  
  I'm curious what jurisdiction that was in, I'm not familiar with every state but in my experience incorporation isn't THAT expensive, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the typical incorporation fees are under $200 regardless of whether it is an s-corp or LLC or whatever. If you are figuring in annual registered agent expenses, it adds up but even with those costs you are still likely well under 2 grand. I'd suggest you check your accountant or lawyer and what they are charging you. There isn't a reason to pay more than you have to.
• LJ

  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "To open up a sole proprietoship, the funding was was dirt cheap. Licensing and fees were within a couple hundred bucks. S-Corp cost around 2 grand back twenty years ago."
  
  I'm curious what jurisdiction that was in, I'm not familiar with every state but in my experience incorporation isn't THAT expensive, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the typical incorporation fees are under $200 regardless of whether it is an s-corp or LLC or whatever. If you are figuring in annual registered agent expenses, it adds up but even with those costs you are still likely well under 2 grand. I'd suggest you check your accountant or lawyer and what they are charging you. There isn't a reason to pay more than you have to.

  My dad filed an S-Corp for $575 in 1978
• jhay78

  

  ccrunner609 wrote: THank you Supreme Court for unholding the constitution. These corporations have power because people are stupid and need told what to do. If people would inform themselves their influences wouldnt be so great.

  You mean "upholding" right?
  
  Great point, though. People need to educate themselves and take campaign ads with a grain of salt.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote: No paper entity should have the same rights as humans. There need to be limitations. The NRA is a non-profit group and not Microsoft or the other corporations out there.

  Ok so what you have advocated here is "paper entities" that generate a profit (I will refer to them as corporations from here on out because that is what you are equating them to) should not be subject the same rights as their members.
  
  Lets start with the 1st amendment. You advocate that corporations should not have first amendement rights. Part of which is the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You are advocating corporations can't purchase ads to redress their grievances.
  
  Next the 2nd amendment. Lets say a corporation that provides a security service purchases firearms in order to provide personal security to its customers. Those firearms are not the personal property of its individual employees, but of the corporate entity. Since you argue these coporate entities should not be subjuect to constitutional protection, you should find no problem with the federal government confiscating those firearms if they so desire.
  
  3rd amendment. Without the protection of this amendment corporations can be forced to house and supply federal troops without their permission. You find no problem with this? As you stated these "paper entities should not enjoy the same rights as humans."
  
  4th amendment. Without the protection of this amendent the federal government could search and seize corporate property without warrant. Evidence could be gathered without warrant and suit brought against them in a court of law. The feds could use said evidence against the coporation at trial. After all these dispicable corporations should not have the same rights as humans.
  
  5th amendment. Without the protection of this amendment corporate property could be taken without due process. Federal authorities could take corporate property for public use without just compensation. After all those coporate bastards need to be made to serve the public. Viva Hugo Chavez!
  
  6th amendment. Is specifically in reguards to criminal prosecutions. This would imply that criminal accusations against a corporation would not require a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the State and district where the crime was committed. No need for the federal government to inform the corporation of the nature and cause of their accusations. No need to be confronted with the witnesses against said corporation. No need to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the corporations favor. Definitely no need to have the assistance of counsel for the corporations defense. Although no individual member of the corporation would be subject to abuses. The corporate entity could be put out of business because of them.
  
  7th amendment. No right to a trial by jury for these corporate bastards. We know they are nothing but evil profit mongers, who want dirty air and water. Lets put them before a congressional panel to answer for their for unjust practices.
  
  8th amendment. The federal government surely can impose excessive fines on these evil corporations. Exxon guilty of too large of a carbon footprint. Fine $40 billion.
• majorspark

  

  Another thing I can't understand. Why are some of you so willing to grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists seeking to kill our civilians, yet you want to deny constitutional rights to corporations, who at worst seek their own self interest in the profitability of their enterprise.
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "To open up a sole proprietoship, the funding was was dirt cheap. Licensing and fees were within a couple hundred bucks. S-Corp cost around 2 grand back twenty years ago."
  
  I'm curious what jurisdiction that was in, I'm not familiar with every state but in my experience incorporation isn't THAT expensive, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the typical incorporation fees are under $200 regardless of whether it is an s-corp or LLC or whatever. If you are figuring in annual registered agent expenses, it adds up but even with those costs you are still likely well under 2 grand. I'd suggest you check your accountant or lawyer and what they are charging you. There isn't a reason to pay more than you have to.

  
  
  One last time. And I'm done discussing this. Sole proprietors you pay a few fees. Similar to a partnership...but partnerships have a lot more tax ramifications than sole propietorships.. Corporations are completely different animals...both in setting them up, (officers, minutes and a lot of other BS.)
  
  I went into business in the State of Ohio as a sole proprietor. As a sole proprietor, I assumed much more liabilty than had I incorporated. It was a business decision. This was in back 1989.
  
  Every college in America teaches their business majors the differences between corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships.
  
  I looked into corporate structures and at that time, the going fee was close to 2K (1989) for a sub s-corp...which allowed you several advantages in protecting your personal assets should you be sued or go bankrupt.
  
  And sub s was all the rage for those that wanted all the protections corporations provide, yet was relatively cheap in relation to other corporate structures.
  
  In the late 90's, the popularity of of limited liabilities corp came to fruition because of the reduced costs..about 1/3 less to initiate vs. the s-corp. Inspite of what FFT said, these LLC's have been around a very long time ...particularly in England, but not in the US They slowly made their way into Canada, and then the States.
• Footwedge

  fan_from_texas wrote: Um, I can confirm that LLCs are a fairly recent invention, but so what? That's not responsive to Manhattan's question. An LLC didn't change the legal status of an incorporated sole proprietorship--S corp, C corp, LLC, LLP, PC, whatever--they're all "corporate" entities in the sense that they have corporate personhood as a legal fiction. Introducing a new type of one affects taxes and default rules, but it doesn't have anything to do with Manhattan's question.

  
  
  MB asked me if I make a habit of "making things up" I don't make things up. I've personally been involved where a corporation was put into receivership, whereby the owner of the company walked away with close to a million dollars, even though the corp, in which he was the majority stockholder, was bankrupt. The owner owed his salespeople over 65K in commissions. He stuck me for a measly $3100.
  
  One of the reps went to court and lost. The reason"? The corporate protection that were on the books Plain and simple. The president of the company was not held personally liable for his debts.
  
  I have also known other instances of local people that have done the same damn thing.
  

  What laws were passed in the past few decades that suddenly allowed companies to be sued? They've been able to be sued forever.
  
  It sounds like you're talking about corporate veil piercing. Again, that's been around for a century or so--it's nothing that has changed in the past decade.
  
  What are you talking about?

  Of course companies can be sued. I never said that they can't be sued.
  
  However, the laws have definitely changed regarding the "corporate veil" as you word it.
  
  I'm not going to waste time in googling it. But if you ask any corporate lawyer that's been at it for 20 years or so, he/she will be happy to share with you the changes in the laws....
  
  Corporate CEO's are much more vulnerable today...versus 1 short decade ago...due to Enron and others.
  
  Put another way....the "corporate veil" no longer protects the owners of businesses nearly as much as they did even 20 years ago.
• Footwedge

  majorspark wrote: Another thing I can't understand. Why are some of you so willing to grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists seeking to kill our civilians, yet you want to deny constitutional rights to corporations, who at worst seek their own self interest in the profitability of their enterprise.

  Throughout the presidential campaign, all we heard from both Obama and McCain was the need for campaign reform...that the lobbyists have too big a stanglehold on the law makers,
  
  From MSNBC over to Fox News, everyone was complaing about money buying politicians. and that it needed to stop.
  
  Now, the 5 conservative judges rule in favor of unlimited buyting of the candidates from unions and the international corporations
  
  And now, all of a sudden, the right has an epiiphany of some sort? That all that complaining about candidates being bought is now all of sudden, OK?.
  
  As an American citizen, I have to prove that I am an American before I donate one lousy dollar. I am limited in funding the candidate of my choice at $2300,
  
  But with today's ruling, unlimited funds can come pouring in from companies that might derive 95% of their revnues off shore. And some how that's constitutional.
  
  Companies from China, India....and most probably Saudi Arabia will expect political favors...over and above the citizens of this country.
  
  I will laugh my ass off if the bin Ladin family pour in 1 billion dollars or so in buying oil business.
  
  This legislation, if you can call it that, represents all that is wrong with American politics today,,,in a nutshell...only now..the problem has been magnified exponentially.
• queencitybuckeye

  Footwedge wrote:
  MB asked me if I make a habit of "making things up" I don't make things up.

  Now that's funny.