It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Rules Corporations, Just Like People, Should Be Able To Give To Candidates

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Federal Judge Rules Corporations, Just Like People, Should Be Able To Give To Candidates


tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

Last year the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United opened up the coffers of political action groups to corporate funds because the court found that companies -- just like people -- should be able to donate to political causes. Now a federal judge has ruled that based on that logic, corporations should be able to give directly to politicians just like human beings.

ruled that "for better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation wi
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Your opinion matters
Ya Right!!!

The United States of Lobbyists, our tourism info-center has pamphlets for you to deicde which bills and initiative you might want to lobby for, and remember the more money you give the chances your personal interests will gain spotlight.

Can you imagine it?
Obama wearing a Nascar jacket with British Petroleum's logo, Goldmann Sachs's Logo, AIPAC and who knows who else.

But Companies are NOT like people, they do not hold the same accountability as individuals, they don't have real life expectancies and the companies that have lasted the longest are the most corrupt.

I guarantee foreign lobbyists will be the biggest winners.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
It might surprise you to know that corporations have been treated as people since the early 1800s and has been supported regularly by courts -- it is a mistake in law and it should be changed I believe it is worse in the US than in other counties. Citizens United will have bad ramifications.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
You do know that single contributions to candidates are very limited. This is a non-relavant issue.

Private donations are at a set limit and not a percentage so a big oil company would be held to the same amount as grammy Mary.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This isn't really breaking news. As stupid as it is, corporations have been held on a par with "people" for quite a while now, under the "personhood of corporations", which dates back to 1886. See The Straight Dope for more info.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
And this is going to the supreme court, this summer. And you can bet those unelected SOBs are gonna vote for the corporations.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
"for better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech."

There is a 'distinction', IMO, the power they can hold is distinct and can go a long way (good or bad) compared to just an individual.
On the other hand they are held liable and are responsible for choices they make according to the legal guidelines, just like an individual.






posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Guys everyone knows that lobbyists already lobby
Everyone knows AIPAC controls foreign policy and goldman sacchs controls the economy
We know that weapons companies control buying habits of the pentagon

We all know this already, i'm sure nobody here on ATS doesn't already know that

But this is a federal judge saying coorporations are just like people
Do you not realize how many ripple effects this may cause?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by synnergy
"for better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech."

There is a 'distinction', IMO, the power they can hold is distinct and can go a long way (good or bad) compared to just an individual.
On the other hand they are held liable and are responsible for choices they make according to the legal guidelines, just like an individual.





An individual has just as much power if they want. AARP was founded by one lady and is now one of the most powerful groups in Washingtion, strong enough to rival or beat any other coorperate lobbyists. And it was individuals who caused the Civil Rights Movement so don't think that individuals have no power.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I think this is crazy, but then I thought that maybe once we get far enough into this corporations-are-people thing, corporations will actually start having to pay taxes.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I agree with you, Individuals can carry much power by their desires and determination.

I'm simply stating that in comparison a Corporation/Organization (strength in numbers) can be
strong competition for just an individual. 'One person'.

Those that helped shape our nation in the past were 'boosted' by support from others. That is not to say they didn't excel on their own.

This is about donating to political causes, in which I believe Corporations at times can have the upper hand,
(i.e., more capital) compared to 'One person".




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatedAxion
I think this is crazy, but then I thought that maybe once we get far enough into this corporations-are-people thing, corporations will actually start having to pay taxes.

Corporations already pay taxes
Only difference is sometimes they get tax breaks, like if they maintain a low turnover rate

when I say that's the difference I only mean tax-wise, thought I should mention that



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
What do you exspect!
Federal Judge are totally corrupt.
when we have, "the peoples Judge"
then we will have justice.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


America has gone completely down the toilet. It was once a great country. Now it isn't! I feel sorry for everyone that has to live there. I honestly don't see a way forward for the US.

IRM



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
The Citizens United ruling was not in any way in regards to corporations making political donations. The Citizens United ruling has been used ad nauseum as an example of it, but in order to view that ruling as such, one necessarily has to ignore two important issues.

The first issue is that of the First Amendment. Citizens United was a corporation that attempted to air a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton near the Senate election of which she was in the race. A clause in the Bipartisan Finance Reform Act prohibited anyone, not just corporations, but you or I, from making such a political speech within a certain time frame. The Supreme Court correctly relied upon the First Amendment, which begins with "Congress shall make no laws...", as their guide to determine that Congress had no authority to chill speech in such a way.

The Citizens United ruling was not just a victory for corporations, it was a victory for everyone as it was the courts restraining government from intruding upon the natural rights of people.

The second issue is regarding people, or more specifically persons. Before the Citizens United ruling there were many erroneous assertions that the SCOTUS had granted corporations the right to personhood in the ruling Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad. However, the Santa Clara County ruling never held any such thing, and any discussion regarding the personhood of a corporation was merely dicta and not holding. More importantly, the fact of the matter is - and not just fact, but truth - that Congress had all ready long ago granted corporations the role of personhood in the Uniform Commercial Code:


(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.


www.law.cornell.edu...

So, when the courts do speak of corporations in terms of person, they are doing so because they are bound to acknowledge Congress' authority to legislate and define.

Railing and ranting on about the Supreme Court on this issue of personhood regarding corporations while giving Congress a free pass on it is not just ignorant, it only ensures the very rulings that seem to upset so many people.

If you want to stop corporations from being granted the same rights as individual humans, then the first place to begin would be in demanding Congress repeal their definitions of a person and exclude corporations from that equation. Screaming at the Supreme Court for applying the law as written is tantamount to screaming at a dog for barking or a bird for chirping.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
If corporations are like people, when will one be president?

We need an amendment.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Actually they wouldnt. The supreme court ruling gutted the Mcain-Feingold act that put caps on campaign contributions from PAC's set up by businesses. Essentially this ruling opens the flood gates for corporations, while keeps restrictions in place for individual donations.

And I agreee, The government is there for the people, not business, and it should be subservient to the people, and not business.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
You do know that single contributions to candidates are very limited. This is a non-relavant issue.

Private donations are at a set limit and not a percentage so a big oil company would be held to the same amount as grammy Mary.


It dosent make a lick of difference if the donations to candidates is limited to a dollar. By anonymously donating to pac and groups like the couple that Karl Rove has, corporations or individuals can donate to produce and buy media supporting a candidate swaying the vote, essentially buying the election. If you think that is "unpossible" look around it is happening BIG TIME look at the 2010 elections - corporate windfall - Wisconsin - corporate windfall. Basically Citizens United has been a godsend for Corps and a disaster for voters. Bad thing is the democrats are going to have to do the same thing to keep up, then Corps really win.

So are you really comfortable with the concept that single contributions are very limited??
edit on 28-5-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The Citizens United ruling was not just a victory for corporations, it was a victory for everyone as it was the courts restraining government from intruding upon the natural rights of people.



Well that boils down to nonsense. We the people and We the Corporate people are just one happy family -- I will gladly contribute my fifty dollars to support my opposing view to a corporations 5 million. Now that is a level playing field. It is always nice to be screwed on a flat surface.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join