Archive

Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations.

  • ross ford81
    So many of you think this is just about Corporations, but it also benefits Big Labor. Not a great decision for Republicans.
  • Shane Falco
    majorspark wrote:
    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.
    Ladies and Gentlemen ..... WE HAVE A WINNER!
  • cbus4life
    Footwedge wrote:
    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.
    Well said.

    This ruling ruined my day, pretty much.
  • fan_from_texas
    Footwedge, you're completely out of touch here. Corporate forms have existed as limited liability entites for centuries. Individual owners of "corporate" entities (stockholders, LLC members, LLP partners, whatever) have had limited liability for as long as limited liability forms have existed. LLCs didn't change the liability aspect of the corporate form one bit. What they did change is that LLCs are taxed as pass-through partnership entitites, rather than double-taxed like C-corps, yet they retain the ability to have members/managers/ownership interests much like corporations. They're a combination of partnership tax rules with corporate form. That's the innovation--changing tax rules--and it has nothing to do with limited liability. Ask any corporate lawyer who's been at it for 20 years or so, and s/he will be happy to share this with you. This is pretty basic stuff.

    The corporate veil doesn't apply to treating businesses as legal persons. It applies to holding stockholders accountable for corporate misdeeds. The example you gave above re corporate owner walking away with personal fortune intact is exactly, 100% the way our system is set up and has been set up since Adam Smith got the ball rolling on joint-stock companies. It provides limited liability to individual stockholders, absent some form of fraud, which would allow creditors to go after personal assetts. You keep talking about this like it's a recent change in the law, but corporate veil peircing (which, btw, is a term of art that means a specific concept, not a made up term that you can throw around) has been around for a century or more.

    All of this is very different than treating corporate entities as legal persons and holding them accountable. You're conflating the two concepts and arguing about them, but you're completely missing very basic points of corporate law that anyone picks up in a 101 level class. You're completely out of your element, and you're saying things that don't make any sense at all. Corporations can be criminally investigated and sanctioned (as they often are by SEC/EPA/DOJ) precisely because they have legal personhood and are legally cognizable entities.
  • LJ
    Footwedge wrote:

    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.

    $2k in 1989? Maybe that was the total cost a lawyer gave you to completely write it up and file it for you.

    The fee in Ohio has never been that high. I had dinner with my usual group last night, one of whom happens to be a lawyer. He charges $150 per hour and said it is 4 hours for S-Corp plus a $125 ohio fee. $725. It was $575 total with a $75 filing fee in 1978. In other words, it was never $2000 to file in Ohio.
  • derek bomar
    fan_from_texas wrote: Footwedge, you're completely out of touch here. Corporate forms have existed as limited liability entites for centuries. Individual owners of "corporate" entities (stockholders, LLC members, LLP partners, whatever) have had limited liability for as long as limited liability forms have existed. LLCs didn't change the liability aspect of the corporate form one bit. What they did change is that LLCs are taxed as pass-through partnership entitites, rather than double-taxed like C-corps, yet they retain the ability to have members/managers/ownership interests much like corporations. They're a combination of partnership tax rules with corporate form. That's the innovation--changing tax rules--and it has nothing to do with limited liability. Ask any corporate lawyer who's been at it for 20 years or so, and s/he will be happy to share this with you. This is pretty basic stuff.

    The corporate veil doesn't apply to treating businesses as legal persons. It applies to holding stockholders accountable for corporate misdeeds. The example you gave above re corporate owner walking away with personal fortune intact is exactly, 100% the way our system is set up and has been set up since Adam Smith got the ball rolling on joint-stock companies. It provides limited liability to individual stockholders, absent some form of fraud, which would allow creditors to go after personal assetts. You keep talking about this like it's a recent change in the law, but corporate veil peircing (which, btw, is a term of art that means a specific concept, not a made up term that you can throw around) has been around for a century or more.

    All of this is very different than treating corporate entities as legal persons and holding them accountable. You're conflating the two concepts and arguing about them, but you're completely missing very basic points of corporate law that anyone picks up in a 101 level class. You're completely out of your element, and you're saying things that don't make any sense at all. Corporations can be criminally investigated and sanctioned (as they often are by SEC/EPA/DOJ) precisely because they have legal personhood and are legally cognizable entities.
    ftw
  • fan_from_texas
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:

    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.

    $2k in 1989? Maybe that was the total cost a lawyer gave you to completely write it up and file it for you.

    The fee in Ohio has never been that high. I had dinner with my usual group last night, one of whom happens to be a lawyer. He charges $150 per hour and said it is 4 hours for S-Corp plus a $125 ohio fee. $725. It was $575 total with a $75 filing fee in 1978. In other words, it was never $2000 to file in Ohio.
    Heck, you can fill out a form on LegalZoom and incorporate in Ohio for a few hundred bucks, total.
  • chs71
    Freedom of Speech, what a horrible concept.
  • LJ
    fan_from_texas wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:

    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.

    $2k in 1989? Maybe that was the total cost a lawyer gave you to completely write it up and file it for you.

    The fee in Ohio has never been that high. I had dinner with my usual group last night, one of whom happens to be a lawyer. He charges $150 per hour and said it is 4 hours for S-Corp plus a $125 ohio fee. $725. It was $575 total with a $75 filing fee in 1978. In other words, it was never $2000 to file in Ohio.
    Heck, you can fill out a form on LegalZoom and incorporate in Ohio for a few hundred bucks, total.
    I was just talking to my dad and he was telling me about in the mid-80's when word processors became really popular you had lawyers who had their own forms who would do it for $200+ filing fee. Apparently he filed S-Corps in 1974, 78, 83, 88, and 93. He said he thinks 88 and 93 were the cheapest because of the reduced amount of work for the lawyers. He said '74 was the hardest because he didn't know any specific lawyers who did incorporation and got charged like $850.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    fan_from_texas wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:

    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.

    $2k in 1989? Maybe that was the total cost a lawyer gave you to completely write it up and file it for you.

    The fee in Ohio has never been that high. I had dinner with my usual group last night, one of whom happens to be a lawyer. He charges $150 per hour and said it is 4 hours for S-Corp plus a $125 ohio fee. $725. It was $575 total with a $75 filing fee in 1978. In other words, it was never $2000 to file in Ohio.
    Heck, you can fill out a form on LegalZoom and incorporate in Ohio for a few hundred bucks, total.
    Don't tell too many people that. The legal mark-ups were probably always outrageous, but they are getting increasingly outrageous. My favorite anecdotes from "BIGLAW" practice:

    1) As part of the private equity/venture cap group, we had monthly meetings for marketing purposes. The head of the group would openly brag how we wouldn't take on a client for less than $30,000 yet the billing time for the services was a fraction of the stated cost. He pretty much admitted to 'fraud' (technically it isn't if you do flat fee) in front of summer associates.

    2) On a Saturday I'm actually working and one of the senior partners asks me to come into his office. He's drafting an e-mail to a general counsel (who is actually a buddy of mine and the partner has no idea that I know him) and doesn't know how to copy and paste text from Word into an Outlook e-mail. I patiently instruct him how to use Control-C and Control-V and even offer to help him change the font and size as it looks ridiculous, he declines and bills time at whatever crazy charge for me showing him something a 2nd grader can do.

    3) Same Saturday, another senior partner can't figure out how to remove a USB device. I show him. He bills for it.

    4) For CLE I attend a lecture by a guy that supposedly is the foremost expert in business law in the jurisdiction. It was 30 minutes of witnessing a drunken uncle giving a speech at a rehearsal dinner. Most of what he said didn't make sense, and what did make sense a 3rd year associate could have said the same thing.

    5) Going back old school to my first firm, I e-mail a senior associate a document, go home to my apartment. Senior associate calls me on my cell phone and wants the document "hand delivered" to him. I begrudgingly go back into the office, print out the document and hand it to him. He informs me to bill for it, including travel time. He's now a partner at a NYC branch of a Chicago based firm.

    6) Last firm I worked for, they cut salaries across the board for associates claiming clients insisted on it.....then increased associate billing rates for the upcoming year.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    One more:

    My last firm charged a fix fee of $500 for being agent for service of process for all business entities. This service entails having a paralegal (or secretary) receive a letter by the state corporation commission regarding annual dues, opening it and forwarding it to the client.
  • Shane Falco
    cbus4life wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    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.
    Well said.

    This ruling ruined my day, pretty much.
    I believe this ruling was for advertisement purposes only, it didn't have anything to do with business donating to a canidate. NO?
  • Footwedge
    Shane Falco wrote:
    cbus4life wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    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.
    Well said.

    This ruling ruined my day, pretty much.
    I believe this ruling was for advertisement purposes only, it didn't have anything to do with business donating to a canidate. NO?
    And why do people spend $$ to advertise? There is no real difference between funding the campaign directly or indirectly. Political favors are expected in return. If they didn't get political favors, then they wouldn't spend $$ on advertisements.

    It's that simple.
  • Footwedge
    ross ford81 wrote: So many of you think this is just about Corporations, but it also benefits Big Labor. Not a great decision for Republicans.
    This.

    And that's how the entire polical spectrum viewed buying politicians.

    Until yesterday of course. Now, most Republicans have changed their minds....after reading a couple of Op ed's from the WSJ and the National Review.

    Really sad but very telling.

    Funny how the bipartisan McCain Feingold campaign reform bill that was oh so popular. Designed to get big money out of politics. But now, huge money in controlling the government is a first ammendment issue. Hilarious.

    And people wonder why I quit the Republican party 5 years ago.
  • eersandbeers
    Footwedge wrote:
    ross ford81 wrote: So many of you think this is just about Corporations, but it also benefits Big Labor. Not a great decision for Republicans.
    This.

    And that's how the entire polical spectrum viewed buying politicians.

    Until yesterday of course. Now, most Republicans have changed their minds....after reading a couple of Op ed's from the WSJ and the National Review.

    Really sad but very telling.

    Funny how the bipartisan McCain Feingold campaign reform bill that was oh so popular. Designed to get big money out of politics. But now, huge money in controlling the government is a first ammendment issue. Hilarious.

    And people wonder why I quit the Republican party 5 years ago.
    Donations from big labor will not even come close to matching donations from corporations.
  • fan_from_texas
    Footwedge wrote:
    ross ford81 wrote: So many of you think this is just about Corporations, but it also benefits Big Labor. Not a great decision for Republicans.
    This.

    And that's how the entire polical spectrum viewed buying politicians.

    Until yesterday of course. Now, most Republicans have changed their minds....after reading a couple of Op ed's from the WSJ and the National Review.

    Really sad but very telling.

    Funny how the bipartisan McCain Feingold campaign reform bill that was oh so popular. Designed to get big money out of politics. But now, huge money in controlling the government is a first ammendment issue. Hilarious.

    And people wonder why I quit the Republican party 5 years ago.
    I guess we move in different circles. When I was in law school, McCain-Feingold was often cited as an example of legislation that was popular, but clearly unconstitutional. The issue wasn't "if" it would be overturned, it was a question of which case would be the test case that would overturn it. The 5-4 split didn't focus so much on the 1st A. issues as they did on the pragmatics of it--on the law, it's pretty clear, even if it introduces some awkward consequences. I don't like the idea of corporations throwing lots of money at elections, but I generally think we should stick to what the Constitution says, even if it's otherwise inconvenient. I don't see any reason to change my tune here.
  • Footwedge
    LJ wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:

    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.

    $2k in 1989? Maybe that was the total cost a lawyer gave you to completely write it up and file it for you.

    The fee in Ohio has never been that high. I had dinner with my usual group last night, one of whom happens to be a lawyer. He charges $150 per hour and said it is 4 hours for S-Corp plus a $125 ohio fee. $725. It was $575 total with a $75 filing fee in 1978. In other words, it was never $2000 to file in Ohio.
    Look...I'm not going to argue about what I was quoted to open up an S-Corp in the late 80's. My lawyer, who was/is one of the best around here, spelled it out. If you could get it cheaper in Blacklick...or your dad did...good for you.

    I don't care if you are the moderator. I don't like being indirectly called a liar. If you want to compare and contrast the prices of Sub S vs. LLC then show the figures.
  • majorspark
    I agree FFT. I was very upset Bush did not uphold oath of office and veto this unconstitutional piece of shit. The legislation should have been called the incumbent protection act of 2002.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    In Virginia an S Corporation is $75.

    http://www.scc.virginia.gov/clk/dom_corp.aspx

    An LLC is $100:

    http://www.scc.virginia.gov/clk/dom_llc.aspx

    I can't imagine the fees being that much higher in other jurisdictions.
  • eersandbeers
    majorspark wrote: I agree FFT. I was very upset Bush did not uphold oath of office and veto this unconstitutional piece of shit. The legislation should have been called the incumbent protection act of 2002.

    Or the "Protect whatever integrity is left of elections Act."

    Our Republic is finished. People don't realize the ramifications of this act. Every candidate from here on out will be a Manchurian candidate bought and paid for by corporate interests. The will of the American people matters even less.


    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

    "Unless you become more watchful in your states and check the spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that... the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations." - Andrew Jackson
  • fan_from_texas
    Footwedge wrote: If you want to compare and contrast the prices of Sub S vs. LLC then show the figures.
    Legalzoom will allow you to form the following:

    Incorporation: $139
    LLC: $149
    LP: $149
    LLP: $149
    Non-profit corp: $139

    What else do you want to see?
  • Footwedge
    fan_from_texas wrote: Footwedge, you're completely out of touch here. Corporate forms have existed as limited liability entites for centuries. Individual owners of "corporate" entities (stockholders, LLC members, LLP partners, whatever) have had limited liability for as long as limited liability forms have existed.
    FFT...you were the one that stated LLC were "new". I corrected you. Review the thread.
    The corporate veil doesn't apply to treating businesses as legal persons. It applies to holding stockholders accountable for corporate misdeeds. The example you gave above re corporate owner walking away with personal fortune intact is exactly, 100% the way our system is set up and has been set up since Adam Smith got the ball rolling on joint-stock companies.


    The corporate veil is what it is. And the corporate veil has changed over the past 20 years or so. The example I shared regarding the business owner walking away with his corporation's money, would be extremely hard to do today.

    If you want to know why this guy was put into receivership then review the case Belzona vs Logan Corporation...state of New York. 1988.
    It provides limited liability to individual stockholders, absent some form of fraud, which would allow creditors to go after personal assetts. You keep talking about this like it's a recent change in the law, but corporate veil peircing (which, btw, is a term of art that means a specific concept, not a made up term that you can throw around) has been around for a century or more.
    Like I said above, the corporate veil today is a lot more penetrable than it was 20 years ago. I'm sorry...but it is. Since you are so persistant in "proving me wrong", I will try to research it.
    All of this is very different than treating corporate entities as legal persons and holding them accountable. You're conflating the two concepts and arguing about them, but you're completely missing very basic points of corporate law that anyone picks up in a 101 level class. You're completely out of your element, and you're saying things that don't make any sense at all. Corporations can be criminally investigated and sanctioned (as they often are by SEC/EPA/DOJ) precisely because they have legal personhood and are legally cognizable entities.
    I am not conflating anything. I was very clear in what I said. It is you that wants to conflate the issue with legalese.

    Basic business...

    3 elements.

    1. Sole proprietorsahip
    2. Partnerships
    3. Corporations.

    1 and 2 have much more stringent personal liabilities than #3. This is not even debatable, However, over the past 20 years, the corporate veil, as you put. is not as protective as it was 20 years ago.

    Call up a corporate attorney for the past 20 years, and he/she will explain it better than I can.
  • fan_from_texas
    You're unbelievable. I assume that others reading this thread see how ridiculous you're being.

    LLCs are "new" in the US (inasmuch as they've only existed since the 1990s-ish). Corporate forms that provide limited liability and protection to shareholders are not new. They've been around for a long, long time. What part of this is unclear to you?

    Absent fraud, it's still very difficult to pierce the corporate veil. That hasn't changed and isn't likely to change anytime soon. Despite your claims that the law has radically changed in the past 20 years, which you somehow tie into the existence of LLCs, you're wrong. Period. This probably isn't worth debating anymore.
    I am not conflating anything. I was very clear in what I said. It is you that wants to conflate the issue with legalese.
    You continue to equate the ability to hold a company liable for a violation (that is, corporate personhood, which was the whole issue behind this thread) with the ability to hold an individual shareholder of that company liable for a violation (that is, piercing the corporate veil). The fact that you keep harping on the idea of holding an individual shareholder liable demonstrates that you're missing the point--that's veil piercing, not corporate personhood. They're different concepts. How can this not be clear to you by now?
    Basic business...

    3 elements.

    1. Sole proprietorsahip
    2. Partnerships
    3. Corporations.

    1 and 2 have much more stringent personal liabilities than #3. This is not even debatable, However, over the past 20 years, the corporate veil, as you put. is not as protective as it was 20 years ago.
    LPs, LLPs, and LLCs--all of which are treated as "partnership entities" as opposed to "corporate entities"--all have limited liability in the exact same way that an s-corp or c-corp does. The difference between them generally results from (1) default rules in absence of an operating agreement to deal with issues such as dissolution, and (2) tax treatment.
    Call up a corporate attorney for the past 20 years, and he/she will explain it better than I can.
    Well, s/he certainly couldn't do any worse. You keep referring to these mythical corporate attys as those some expertise is needed to understand this. This is something that anyone who has taken intro corporations can explain confidently. It's not a tough concept, and I'm not sure why you keep digging here.
  • Footwedge
    fan_from_texas wrote:
    Footwedge wrote: If you want to compare and contrast the prices of Sub S vs. LLC then show the figures.
    Legalzoom will allow you to form the following:

    Incorporation: $139
    LLC: $149
    LP: $149
    LLP: $149
    Non-profit corp: $139

    What else do you want to see?
    And what relevance does that have with the prices in 1989 in southeastern Ohio?? Why would I make up the prices that I was quoted in 1989? What is my agenda for doing so?

    Explain to me exactly what your problem is here?

    LJ said his dad paid a hair under $600 in 78 for a Sub S.. Sounds about right to me. In 89, the price was very close to 2K.

    If I was highballed a few bucks...so be it. I chose not to open under Sub S.
  • Footwedge
    fan_from_texas wrote: You're unbelievable. I assume that others reading this thread see how ridiculous you're being.

    LLCs are "new" in the US (inasmuch as they've only existed since the 1990s-ish). Corporate forms that provide limited liability and protection to shareholders are not new. They've been around for a long, long time. What part of this is unclear to you?

    Absent fraud, it's still very difficult to pierce the corporate veil. That hasn't changed and isn't likely to change anytime soon. Despite your claims that the law has radically changed in the past 20 years, which you somehow tie into the existence of LLCs, you're wrong. Period. This probably isn't worth debating anymore.
    I am not conflating anything. I was very clear in what I said. It is you that wants to conflate the issue with legalese.
    You continue to equate the ability to hold a company liable for a violation (that is, corporate personhood, which was the whole issue behind this thread) with the ability to hold an individual shareholder of that company liable for a violation (that is, piercing the corporate veil). The fact that you keep harping on the idea of holding an individual shareholder liable demonstrates that you're missing the point--that's veil piercing, not corporate personhood. They're different concepts. How can this not be clear to you by now?
    Basic business...

    3 elements.

    1. Sole proprietorsahip
    2. Partnerships
    3. Corporations.

    1 and 2 have much more stringent personal liabilities than #3. This is not even debatable, However, over the past 20 years, the corporate veil, as you put. is not as protective as it was 20 years ago.
    LPs, LLPs, and LLCs--all of which are treated as "partnership entities" as opposed to "corporate entities"--all have limited liability in the exact same way that an s-corp or c-corp does. The difference between them generally results from (1) default rules in absence of an operating agreement to deal with issues such as dissolution, and (2) tax treatment.
    Call up a corporate attorney for the past 20 years, and he/she will explain it better than I can.
    Well, s/he certainly couldn't do any worse. You keep referring to these mythical corporate attys as those some expertise is needed to understand this. This is something that anyone who has taken intro corporations can explain confidently. It's not a tough concept, and I'm not sure why you keep digging here.
    Fine. I will post specifics on the corporate veils harsher penalties.. There may be some that disagree with what I''ve stated. But there are plenty of others that know damn well that I know what I speak of here.

    But nice jab shots, bud. Why you have to preface your remarks that way is remarkable. Just sayin.