No, they don't. They are just an idea, a mental concoction, much like the Constitution is but invented to thwart it by disrupting the balance of power in government. They don't physically exist anymore than minotaurs exist. Their "speech" is nothing more than the "speech" of the single or few people who have "CONTROLLING INTEREST" (Ultra-wealthy) and is never ALL the voices of ALL the people who make up the corporation. Forget about separation of church and state. To save this country we need separation of business and state.
Should the government also not let those evil news corporations publish news? Gotta love censorship. China might have a spot for you.
Und after zee book burning, vee shall go und set fire to all dose who will not submit to the unions. HAIL UNIONS! HAIL UNIONS! HAIL UNIONS! All power to zee commies! Maris, I have no axe to grind with you, but do you really support your communistic viewpoints or are you just putting us on?
I agree that govt. should do no favors for business, but I think you're absolutely wrong about what corporations are about (as well as other business types). Without the legal concept of a corporation, people like you could not raise money to start a business. The people you take in as partners might be worth $1M and invest $1, but could be sued for their whole $1M since there'd be no liability protection without the corporation. So they wouldn't even give you the $1. Corporations hire about 25% of the workforce, so without them we'd have unemployment far worse than during the depression. Businesses and corporations are the tax collectors. They withhold from your paycheck and send money to the govt. periodically to pay for all those services you seem to love. Businesses and corporations provide health care insurance and retirement plans for just about all the people in the country that have these things. If there are 35M without health insurance, then the corporations are paying for it for 90% of the people. I really love it when progressives spout this kind of crap. I always ask, "progress towards what?" The answer seems to be "back to the stone age" and I literally mean everyone living in caves and hunting with sticks.
There's never been a "planned capitalist system". Corporations predate modern democracy, so it's not like they are some recent invention and drain upon it. Ed O.
[video=youtube;PeGlzEavpTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Vote for Chris Dudley, a Yale Graduate with an Economics Degree, who only wants the best for Oregonians, not his own political career. He wants to fix this mess that the Oregon Legislature has put this State in the last 25 years.
Lol... Chris Dudley. An inexperienced former ball player who can only spout Republican talking points. But I do have respect for anyone who majored in Economics. Taking those classes, they are hard as hell (IMO).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...561248784550.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories Democrats Seek to Counter Court Ruling on Political Spending WASHINGTON—Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger. President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for "special interests and their lobbyists." He cited "one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt," who "warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending" on elections. Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes. Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring "the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, 'I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee. On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates. Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court's decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.
While I completely agree with the SCOTUS decision, I also like the ideas in bold and don't see that they're unconstitutional in the least. The bottom line is that govt. simply must not be allowed to decide who can speak in favor of, or especially against, the government. Particularly when it's inconvenient for the incumbents or the two entrenched parties. It is quite important, however, that people know the source of the ads.
I actually like the idea of corporations, organizations or unions having to plainly announce they're responisble for the ad. There's no disinfectant like sunshine.
I agree, but I also have no issue with the other proposals. Why not enact them all? As I posted earlier, why is it in the shareholders' interest for a corporation to spend money on political ads? The only downside I see in forcing a shareholder vote is that for the largest corporations, these things are typically done with proxies, so management basically will get these things passed. Though it would provide a forum for shareholders to voice their displeasure. I also don't see why anyone should get tax benefits for politicking.
The problem is expediency. Theoretically, public corporations are like representative democracies. Shareholders elect the Board of Directors, who appoint executives to run the company. The shareholders meet once a year; the BOD meets once a quarter or once a month. It's not frequent enough to micro-manage where a corporation may choose to put its political money. That request would be akin to having a national election to decide how much the Federal Government should spend on those commercials that tell you how to order a brochure from Pueblo, CO. It's simply too small. If there is a shareholder revolt over the decision to politic for a certain issue, the BOD can be removed by vote. If the BOD revolts, they can remove the executives responsible or vote to change the direction. Isn't it just treated as an expense? I don't think there should be a specific tax deduction for lobbying, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be treated as an ordinary expense, no different from advertising or purchasing paper clips.
Depends on the by-laws of the company. In any case, if there's a shareholder meeting every year (required!), then the shareholders could be required to vote to allow any portion of the budget to be spent on political advertising. They may be treated as an expense, but they could be charged a tax - or the beneficiary of the ad charged.
