Protesters: shield corporations from taxes, lawsuits, fines

[raymor]

Since at least the mid 1800s, when you filed a law suit against someone, you could name a corporation as the person you were suing. It is of course much easier to sue Exxon than to identify which specific Exxon employee did wrong and sue that person, proving that particular employee is responsible.

To allow you name to a corporation as the person you're suing, the courts established the principle of "legal persons" or "artificial persons". The same legal principle was later used to start levying taxes on corporations and fined them for violating regulations.

Protestors in the US are now demanding that this principle of corporations as legal persons that can be sued and taxed be done away with. "End corporate personhood", they say. If the protestors get their way, it will be a major setback for consumer protection because corporations could no longer be sued or fined for any wrongdoing.

Personally I was a bit surprised to see this, as I didn't know there were many extreme pro-corporate people protesting. You don't suppose it's that they have no idea what their own signs mean, do you?

[Lucy - CSC]

So basically some poor bugger at the corporation ends up being a fall guy if something goes wrong and the corporation walks away free? Also they could end up becoming exempt to tax?

[kane]

Originally Posted by raymor

Since at least the mid 1800s, when you filed a law suit against someone, you could name a corporation as the person you were suing. It is of course much easier to sue Exxon than to identify which specific Exxon employee did wrong and sue that person, proving that particular employee is responsible.

To allow you name to a corporation as the person you're suing, the courts established the principle of "legal persons" or "artificial persons". The same legal principle was later used to start levying taxes on corporations and fined them for violating regulations.

Protestors in the US are now demanding that this principle of corporations as legal persons that can be sued and taxed be done away with. "End corporate personhood", they say. If the protestors get their way, it will be a major setback for consumer protection because corporations could no longer be sued or fined for any wrongdoing.

Personally I was a bit surprised to see this, as I didn't know there were many extreme pro-corporate people protesting. You don't suppose it's that they have no idea what their own signs mean, do you?

I think what some of them are talking about is the recent ruling by the supreme court that a company is technically a person that is protected by the first amendment and therefore they can spend as much money as they want to influence elections. I think they want that ruling reversed.

[BIGTYMER]

Get the money out of politics!

[L-Pink]

Never work. Who signs and is responsible for leases, insurance, etc? Not even worth discussing.

.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by kane

I think what some of them are talking about is the recent ruling by the supreme court that a company is technically a person that is protected by the first amendment and therefore they can spend as much money as they want to influence elections. I think they want that ruling reversed.

If they are knowingly or unknowingly reacting to the January 2010 campaign finance ruling, they've done a terrible job of choosing a slogan. The principle of corporate personhood was known in colonial times, so "end corporate personhood" makes them appear to be a couple hundred years behind the curve.

If they are talking about campaign finance, a more appropriate slogan would be "get labor unions out of politics". The 2010 decision was 200 years after labor unions and other corporations were recognized as legal persons who could be sued. What that case changed is it said that such corporations can exercise free speech and support a candidate.

[kane]

Originally Posted by raymor

If they are knowingly or unknowingly reacting to the January 2010 campaign finance ruling, they've done a terrible job of choosing a slogan. The principle of corporate personhood was known in colonial times, so "end corporate personhood" makes them appear to be a couple hundred years behind the curve.

If they are talking about campaign finance, a more appropriate slogan would be "get labor unions out of politics". The 2010 decision was 200 years after labor unions and other corporations were recognized as legal persons who could be sued. What that case changed is it said that such corporations can exercise free speech and support a candidate.

They were talking about protests last night on Bill Maher and he asked one of the panelist who was a former republican strategist how she would help them better communicate and she said that one of the problems is that nobody really knows what they want. There seems to be a ton of different messages and they are all over the map. Then when the press goes down to talk to them they get some crazy person to talk who makes it sound like the whole thing is made up of crazy people. Kind of like when the press goes to a tea party event they find the one racist in the crowd and that person makes it seem like they are all racists. So she said they need to get an agenda then get a few spokespersons to the articulate those positions.

Or as Cheech and Chong once said the problem with the legalizing pot movement is that they always get someone who is stoned to get up and speak.

I don't think they would adopt a "get unions out of elections" stance. Unions have been part of elections forever. If they are against the ruling they are likely against the part of it that would allow a company to spend millions to help a candidate out in the form of commercials etc in hopes that they would then have a seat at the table of that person's administration when it came to making certain legislation. It seems like the protesters are fairly pro-union, but it is hard to know for sure.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Doesn't make any sense.

Meanwhile, back in the Gulag..

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/afl-...py-protesters/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/vide...ts-of-america/

[porno jew]

why argue about minutiae? when the income gap in a society becomes grotesque and obscene a revolution occurs, the society is reset and a new one created from scratch.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by kane

They were talking about protests last night on Bill Maher and he asked one of the panelist who was a former republican strategist how she would help them better communicate and she said that
one of the problems is that nobody really knows what they want.
...

I don't think they would adopt a "get unions out of elections" stance. Unions have been part of elections forever. If they are against the ruling they are likely against the part of it that would allow a company to spend millions to help a candidate out in the form of commercials etc in hopes that they would then have a seat at the table of that person's administration when it came to making certain legislation. It seems like the protesters are fairly pro-union, but it is hard to know for sure.

Indeed I don't think they would actually WANT to have the ruling reversed if they knew what the ruling said - that unions, their own protest organizations, and other organizations can practice free speech, and support a candidate who they believe will support them. If you asked them "should your organization (which is incorporated) be allowed to support a candidate?" I'm sure they works say yes. Yet, they are protesting the ruling which gives them that right.

Based on this kind of stuff, I don't think it's a communication issue. I think nobody knows what they want because indeed NOBODY, including themselves, knows what they want. They simply have no idea of what is wrong or what they want, except they are pretty sure it's George Bush's fault. I wish I were there to ve able to ask them "do you think MoveOn.org should be allowed to exercise free speech? If so, why are you protesting a ruling that let's them do so?" I don't think they would have any idea about that. Not they fail to communicate their thoughts effectively, but that they simply haven't thought about the effects of the ruling at all. It affects labor unions probably more than any other type of corporation and from what I can see the lprotestors haven't spent ten seconds to consider that.

[kane]

Originally Posted by raymor

Indeed I don't think they would actually WANT to have the ruling reversed if they knew what the ruling said - that unions, their own protest organizations, and other organizations can practice free speech, and support a candidate who they believe will support them. If you asked them "should your organization (which is incorporated) be allowed to support a candidate?" I'm sure they works say yes. Yet, they are protesting the ruling which gives them that right.

Based on this kind of stuff, I don't think it's a communication issue. I think nobody knows what they want because indeed NOBODY, including themselves, knows what they want. They simply have no idea of what is wrong or what they want, except they are pretty sure it's George Bush's fault. I wish I were there to ve able to ask them "do you think MoveOn.org should be allowed to exercise free speech? If so, why are you protesting a ruling that let's them do so?" I don't think they would have any idea about that. Not they fail to communicate their thoughts effectively, but that they simply haven't thought about the effects of the ruling at all. It affects labor unions probably more than any other type of corporation and from what I can see the lprotestors haven't spent ten seconds to consider that.

When you look at the signs being held up at the protests it is a hodgepodge of different things. Some hate the GOP, some want to close the fed, some are about oil, others about corporations in politics, others about jobs, others about banks. It seems like the movement has become a catchall for anyone who is unhappy about anything.

As for the corporate thing, Unions supported candidates long before this ruling was passed down. The ruling does give them more room to do even more, but in the past the form of support they used was to "encourage" their members to vote for a specific candidate and maybe even get out and spread the word for that candidate and they would also endorse a candidate.

With this ruling it now allows companies (unions included) to spend as much as they want however they want to help a candidate out. They are no longer under any kind of campaign finance laws because it is considered free speech. To me that is wrong because it allows huge companies to have undue influence over an election. A company like Exxon or GE could spend hundreds of millions if they wanted to and all that accomplishes is putting our elected officials up for sale to the highest bidder.