Is a corporation a person? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14948217
blackjack21 wrote:You do realize that the proponents of the 3/5ths Compromise were abolitionists, right? They weren't saying blacks are 3/5ths of a human.


jimjam wrote: for purposes of representation in Congress,


You are getting a little sloppy in your old age my friend.

blackjack21 wrote:You placed a picture of GM headquarters in juxtaposition to a picture of a small girl. I believe Drlee calls that "trolling" when I do it. Comparing a small girl's capacity to contract relative to that of General Motors is a valid legal comparison. In actual fact, the little girl does not have a capacity to contract, whereas General Motors does have such capacity.


I apologize for my Drlee comment. That was a cheap shot. I prefer to think that my juxtaposition gambit was a graphic illustration of the inherent absurdity of calling a corporation a person. Devil's advocacy as opposed to trolling. The whole corporation as person gambit is quite obviously a play to advance plutocracy/money while fucking the little guy behind a wall of lawyer hogwash. Rather than accuse you of false equivalencies I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you failed to grasp my point which had nothing at all to do with contracts.
#14948222
Personally I don't know fuck all about Corporations but this documentary was interesting when I watched it. In fact I've seen it a couple of times. lol


#14948243
So we are dancing around the point.

Corporations (and I own one) are a useful legal fiction. The use of the term "person" is generally incorrect. They are a very distinct legal entity with certain privileges and originally no "rights". Privileges because they exist at all at the convenience of the state. (Or states because in the US there is no such thing as a federal incorporation.) Stop.

At least in principle a state could do away with corporations though whether it could refuse to recognize those from other states is problematic. I can see absolutely no reason why a state would want to do this but in theory......

The real problem of corporate person-hood is when the definition is extended to grant corporations the rights of a citizen. That is an entirely different matter. In the Citizen's united case, the SCOTUS essentially held that corporations had free speech rights. My personal opinion is that this was wrong headed.

Because I own a corporation I can subvert campaign finance law and vote with my money twice. Once in my name and once in the name of my corporation. I don't do this but......

A bigger problem is that a private corporation making campaign contributions is taking money from stockholders and giving it to a political position to which the stockholder/s may not ascribe. I am, in essence, forced to support candidates and issues that I do not wish to support. The argument that the stockholders elect the board or that one can divest do not change the reality of the situation.

The same is true with labor unions. There are people paying dues with are used to support candidates with whom they disagree.

I believe the only viable solution is to realize that certain rights (like free political speech) are individual and not corporate. I have no problem with PACs so long as they are funded by individual contributions but funding them with profits or union dues is unfair to the stockholders.

WRT unions. If union membership was entirely voluntary then there would not be a conflict. One could simply opt-out of membership. Often membership is mandatory and there is the difference.

The notion that one can opt-out of corporations by selling one's stock fails because of the nature of investments. Pension funds own stock in the name of the pensioner but the pensioner does not have the privilege of selecting such stocks. Corporations, doing business with state pension funds, can make political contributions with is even more absurd.

The problem, to the extent one exists, is not with the corporate entity. It is with the notion that we imbue corporations with rights reserved to the people and the states.

I believe justice Roberts is a bit chagrined with his vote on this. He seems to be backpedaling on the broad interpretation this ruling that has been put to use. For example he voted to allow a state ban on political contributions to judges in a tortured reasoning that they are somehow different.

The answer to Citizens united is state law. The court ruling is broad but the state charters of corporations could be used to prohibit political activities. In other words, rather than limiting speech, they could limit the right of the corporation to use profits (which belong to the members/stockholders) to either disbursement or reinvestment and allow corporations to only use voluntary contributions by the members/stockholders for political purposes. This does not limit corporate speech at all. It controls the use of profits.

I find it intolerable that a corporation can consider political speech a business expense, exempt from taxes while an individual is strictly limited in this.
#14948494
This is where it goes, the agenda of the plutocrats:

John Roberts’ supreme court has more often sided with business interests in cases involving labor, the environment, or consumers than has any supreme court since the mid-1930s. Over the past year it not only ruled against public employee unions but also decided that workers cannot join together in class action suits when their employment contract calls for mandatory arbitration. The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation. Trump’s labor department is busily repealing many rules and regulations designed to protect workers.

The more recent shift in bargaining power from workers (persons) to large corporations (persons?) – and consequentially, the dramatic widening of inequalities of income, wealth, and political power – has had a more unfortunate and, I fear, more lasting consequence: an angry working class vulnerable to demagogues peddling authoritarianism, racism, and xenophobia (Trump).
#14948521
jimjam wrote:John Roberts’ supreme court has more often sided with business interests in cases involving labor, the environment, or consumers than has any supreme court since the mid-1930s.

Do you have problems with any of the specific cases? Do you think someone who gets hot coffee at McDonalds and decides to put the hot coffee cup in between their legs should be able to sue McDonalds for the coffee being too hot? Or do you see areas where maybe the tort system has gone too far, and effectively done nothing more than drive insurance rates sky high, clogged the courts with frivolous suits and driven manufacturing off shore?

jimjam wrote:Over the past year it not only ruled against public employee unions...

It ruled against unions being able to compel workers to cough up money for political donations to a party they might disagree with. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think workers should be compelled to donate money to Donald Trump if that's what their union bosses say? Trump is pretty popular with some unions, like the Teamsters. A bunch of your "Trump is a mobster" rhetoric comes from his close ties to labor unions.

jimjam wrote:but also decided that workers cannot join together in class action suits when their employment contract calls for mandatory arbitration.

Because the class action suit would vitiate the terms of the employment agreement. The proper way to address that is to not agree to arbitration. Trying to get the Supreme Court to nix provisions of an agreement creates a bad faith bargaining environment

jimjam wrote:The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation.

That has nothing to do with SCOTUS or whether a corporation is a person.

jimjam wrote:Trump’s labor department is busily repealing many rules and regulations designed to protect workers.

Like what? A lot of these rules are designed for reasons other than their stated purpose.

jimjam wrote:The more recent shift in bargaining power from workers (persons) to large corporations (persons?) – and consequentially, the dramatic widening of inequalities of income, wealth, and political power – has had a more unfortunate and, I fear, more lasting consequence: an angry working class vulnerable to demagogues peddling authoritarianism, racism, and xenophobia (Trump).

A huge part of that bargaining power has been free trade policies that Trump bashes. Yet, if Trump tries to stop outsourcing to child labor sweatshops in China, you write another thread claiming that Trump is an idiot when it comes to economics. Isn't it easier to just write an "I hate Trump thread; here's why" and each day come up with another reason why you hate Trump instead of constantly contradicting yourself, where we're left to find the only common line of reasoning in your posts is that you hate Trump?

Drlee wrote:I am, in essence, forced to support candidates and issues that I do not wish to support.

That is a good argument. The push back would be that you aren't forced to own a particular stock. Jimjam complains that SCOTUS let workers decide if they wanted to make a political contribution, instead of letting labor unions force them to do that.

Drlee wrote:I believe the only viable solution is to realize that certain rights (like free political speech) are individual and not corporate.

Well, there would need to be a cleaner distinction, because political campaigns are corporations too.
#14948971
There are more than 20 registered lobbyists for every member of congress. Most are deployed to block anything that would tax, regulate or otherwise threaten a deep pocketed client. Corporations employed litigators to defend their firings of union supporters and other blatant violations of the law for which they happily fines equivalent to I% or 2% of what they saved by under paying their workers.

A landmark 1976 Supreme Court case brought by lawyers for consumer rights activist Ralph Nader gave corporations a First Amendment right to inform customers by advertising their prices. In the years that followed corporate lawyers morphed this consumer rights victory into a corporate free speech movement. The result has been court decisions allowing corporate money to overwhelm democratic elections and regulations related to basic consumer protection issues , like product labeling.

nota bene: in i976 average CEO pay was $1.2 million and worker pay averaged $46,000. In 2016 average CEO pay is $15 million while worker pay averages $53,000.

WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN? START THE FUCK RIGHT HERE!!!
#14948976
blackjack21 wrote: Isn't it easier to just write an "I hate Trump thread; here's why" and each day come up with another reason why you hate Trump instead of constantly contradicting yourself, where we're left to find the only common line of reasoning in your posts is that you hate Trump?


This is rather pedantic and self serving. Trump per se is a nice man. Rather a sweetie pie. I do hate how he represents the plutocrats in their ceaseless effort to accumulate ever more wealth at the expense of the peons and then lies 7 or 10 times daily to these same peons.

Inflation adjusted middle class earnings have been nearly frozen for the past 4 decades while earnings of the top 1% have tripled. While America is the world's richest nation, it has the third highest poverty rate among 35 nations tracked by the OECD. And …. 1 in 5 American children live in households the government classifies as "food insecure". I could go on for hours but I have better things to do.

Want to make America great again? Go to work right here ^ Donnie Boy.
#14949003
jimjam wrote:Inflation adjusted middle class earnings have been nearly frozen for the past 4 decades while earnings of the top 1% have tripled.

Perhaps it is because you are retired that you do not realize that household incomes have gone up under Trump, and as a consequence so has consumer confidence.

Consumer confidence hits 138.4 in September, vs. 132 estimate
So do you think consumers are confident, because they believe Trump's lies? Do you think the consumer confidence numbers are a lie?



Household income hits high
Presumably, this doesn't include the homeless.

Data show U.S. families better off financially today
Perry notes the annual median income of families headed by married couples with both spouses working was $34,800 in 1949 (and that's in inflation-adjusted 2017 dollars). According to newly released Census data, that figure reached “an all-time high” of $111,000 in 2017.

It's true divorcees do worse financially. However, people who live according to traditional values are better off than say, people who consume drugs recreationally.

jimjam wrote:While America is the world's richest nation, it has the third highest poverty rate among 35 nations tracked by the OECD.

Yeah. You should come to California and see how the smug leftists live. They think it amusing to step over homeless people. It makes them feel like they are better than someone else, which is very important to the smug.

jimjam wrote:And …. 1 in 5 American children live in households the government classifies as "food insecure".

That can only be the result of parents who are drug addicts. Poor people are fat in America. There are plenty of food stamps, food kitchens, etc.
#14949005
blackjack21 wrote:Perhaps it is because you are retired that you do not realize that household incomes have gone up under Trump, and as a consequence so has consumer confidence.

Consumer confidence hits 138.4 in September, vs. 132 estimate
So do you think consumers are confident, because they believe Trump's lies? Do you think the consumer confidence numbers are a lie?



Household income hits high
Presumably, this doesn't include the homeless.

Data show U.S. families better off financially today

It's true divorcees do worse financially. However, people who live according to traditional values are better off than say, people who consume drugs recreationally.


Yeah. You should come to California and see how the smug leftists live. They think it amusing to step over homeless people. It makes them feel like they are better than someone else, which is very important to the smug.


That can only be the result of parents who are drug addicts. Poor people are fat in America. There are plenty of food stamps, food kitchens, etc.

I guess we can conclude that there is not an unreasonable income gap In in America between the plutocrats and the peons. The playing field is level and everybody gets a fair deal?
#14954724
jimjam wrote:The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[13] which states:


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.


These are not a person, they are people.
A body of people.
Some persons.

A group of people.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

^ His lies are creative at least, I'll give him th[…]

Yes, because the Palestinian resistance have a his[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]