A Corporation Has Announced It Will Run For Congress

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
MickyFinn
MickyFinn's picture

Check out this story:

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/02/03/a-corporation-has-announced-it-will-...

The tag line is that this progressive PR company is running in the GOP Primary.

Comments

polycarp2
Well, according to the

Well, according to the Supreme Court, as long as the corporation is at least 25 years old, it meets the requirement to hold public office. It could hold the seat directly rather than paying off its surrogate...a real person.

Perhaps G.E. should run for Pres. on the Democratic ticket...and Haliburton  on the Republican ticket.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

stwo
stwo's picture
Murray Hill Inc. is only 2

Murray Hill Inc. is only 2 years old- too young to run for office or vote.

polycarp2
Maybe they'll get a special

Maybe they'll get a special exemption. Unlike other persons, they don't have to be immunized against contagious diseases in early childhood.

The Supremes will probably figure something out. If they can declare dead pieces of paper sitting in a safe to be persons...age should be easy to overcome. The paper (their body) was probably made from a 25 year-old tree.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

chilidog
Anyone know what happened

Anyone know what happened with this?

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
I realize that it's a bit

I realize that it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this may open a can of worms. I think there are probably many conservatives who believe there's nothing wrong with this.

bjdzyak
bjdzyak's picture
I kinda like the idea. Cut

I kinda like the idea.

Cut out the middle man and just let the Corporations save money and run our government directly.  At least we'd KNOW "who" is really calling the shots.

Mr.Burns
Mr.Burns's picture
D_NATURED wrote:  I think

D_NATURED wrote:

 I think there are probably many conservatives who believe there's nothing wrong with this.

The left is taking this corporate "personhood" thing to literally. The constitutional question that brought all this about is whether or not legal organizations of people have the same constitutional protections as individuals.

DRC
DRC's picture
Once again the fuzzy idea

Once again the fuzzy idea that legal organizations of persons and the persons organized are "the same."  In the very narrow sense of corporate law and property, the "personhood" of the corporation can have a legitimate metaphysical application.  The idea that the institution becomes a civic person outside the functions of Commerce is odious and embraced by the Federalist shills for Corporate on the Court.

Were we only talking about organizations of common interest and not about commerce with its revenue stream, the idea of the collective rights of the organization might work out OK.  The Sierra Club could engage in environmental advocacy as the collective voice of its individual members.  Unions could promote the interests of workers in solidarity instead of atomized constituencies.  Even the Chamber of Commerce would have the right to represent and advocate the interests of its plutocrats.  Their trade associations can do the same.

But opening the revenue stream of Commerce into elections distorts the field seriously.  No other collective can compete what profit making entities can "invest" in their economic and political interests.  These are not contributions to causes, these are bribes and payoffs for big future profits.  It is not really about politics after all, other than to suppress the politics of others so Corporate Commerce can have it all.

It may not be the "personhood" so much as the "citizenship" that is the issue.

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Mr.Burns wrote: D_NATURED

Mr.Burns wrote:

D_NATURED wrote:

 I think there are probably many conservatives who believe there's nothing wrong with this.

The left is taking this corporate "personhood" thing to literally. The constitutional question that brought all this about is whether or not legal organizations of people have the same constitutional protections as individuals.

I realize the gist of the argument. It's just the question of fascism or not.

Paleo-con
D_NATURED wrote: I realize

D_NATURED wrote:

I realize the gist of the argument. It's just the question of fascism or not.

That is a very fair question.  So when a person maintains their right to free speach, regardless of what organization they belong to, is it fascism or liberty?

Art
Art's picture
Quote:So when a person

Quote:
So when a person maintains their right to free speach, regardless of what organization they belong to, is it fascism or liberty?
Obviously, that is not the question. Obviously, a person maintaining his right to free speech is freedom. Obviously, A corporation assuming the rights of a natural person is Fascism.

polycarp2
Mussolini, the Father of

Mussolini, the Father of Fascism,  suggested replacing elected pariiaments with representatives from all the corporate sectors.

We've found we don't have to do that.

Lobbying firms representing the corporate sectors write the laws...their paid Congressional lackey's rubber stamp them.

It's no accident that Obama's Chief of Staff came out of Goldman Sachs. Finance was his largest contributor.

Corporations speak with an expensive megaphone. Voters speak in a whisper.

The Corporate Shadow Government is firmly entrenched.

"We've experienced a slow moving coup de etat. They won. We lost." - Chris Hedges

http://vodpod.com/watch/4361488-chris-hedges-on-moral-courage

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Paleo-con
Art wrote: Quote:So when a

Art wrote:

Quote:
So when a person maintains their right to free speech, regardless of what organization they belong to, is it fascism or liberty?
Obviously, that is not the question. Obviously, a person maintaining his right to free speech is freedom. Obviously, A corporation assuming the rights of a natural person is Fascism.

Actually Art, that is the question.  I believe we have been through this already, and as I recall you said you were going to take the time to read the ruling.  There were only two questions answered by the ruling.  Does an individual lose their rights because they belong to an organization?  The Court ruled that no, they do not.  Therefore, just because someone belongs to a corporation, they do not lose their right to free speech.  The second question concerned whether or not limits were allowed to be applied to political contributions.  The Court said yes, campaign contribution limits in place are constitutional. 

I accepted your criticism in another thread for not providing a link.  So here is a "show me yours" moment.  Please show me where the ruling gives person rights to a corporation.  Otherwise, the question I asked stands as the obvious one.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:and as I recall you

Quote:
and as I recall you said you were going to take the time to read the ruling.
and when I did, I agreed that Citizen's United does not make a Corporation a person. It merely gives corporations the same rights as a natural person. That, in tandem with Buckley v Valeo are the reasons that we are talking about Fascism.

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Paleo-con wrote: D_NATURED

Paleo-con wrote:

D_NATURED wrote:

I realize the gist of the argument. It's just the question of fascism or not.

That is a very fair question.  So when a person maintains their right to free speach, regardless of what organization they belong to, is it fascism or liberty?

When an individual speaks to change politics, it is freedom. When a multi-national, multi-billion dollar organization speaks to change politics-even if only one individual actually speaks for them-it is fascism. Corporations are supposed to be passangers on the democratic bus, not drivers.

chilidog
Here's a weird idea.  I've

Here's a weird idea.  I've wrestled with this problem with political speech, I reject public finance of campaigns, I really don't like Citizens United, if only because it changed 140 years of settled law in the U.S. What if we limited "political speech" to the media available in the 18th Century?  Basically print and speech, and I'd allow the internet. Anything you can actually READ.  Today we are inundated everywhere with television and radio.  There must be studies that prove that the "value" (reliability? truthiness?) your brain assigns to something you READ is greater than the value from something you HEAR.