State Supreme Court rules against Citizens United...

Byrnzie

If corporations are people, then that does that mean that people are corporations? :?:


A corporation is an economic institution designed to make money. That's all.



Interesting article here on the subject:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... and-truth/

October 12, 2011, 2:19 pm
Corporations, People and Truth
By GARY GUTTING


The Occupy Wall Street protest movement has raised serious questions about the role of capitalist institutions, particularly corporations, in our society. Well before the first protester set foot in Zucotti Park, a heckler urged Mitt Romney to tax corporations rather than people. Romney’s response — “Corporations are people” — stirred a brief but intense controversy. Now thousands of demonstrators have in effect joined the heckler, denouncing corporations as ”enemies of the people.”


Who’s right? Thinking pedantically, we can see ways in which Romney was literally correct; for example, corporations are nothing other than the people who own, run and work for them, and they are recognized as “persons” in some technical legal sense. But it is also obvious that corporations are not people in a full moral sense: they cannot, for example, fall in love, write poetry or be depressed.

Far more important than questions about what corporations are (ontological questions, as philosophers say) is the question of what attitude we should have toward them. Should we, as corporate public relations statements often suggest, think of them as friends (if we buy and are satisfied with their products) or as family (if we work for them)? Does it make sense to be loyal to a corporation as either a customer or as an employee? More generally, even granted that corporations are not fully persons in the way that individuals are, do they have some important moral standing in our society?

My answer to all these questions is no, because corporations have no core dedication to fundamental human values. (To be clear, I am speaking primarily of large, for-profit, publicly owned corporations.) Such corporations exist as instruments of profit for their shareholders. This does not mean that they are inevitably evil or that they do not make essential economic contributions to society. But it does mean that their moral and social value is entirely instrumental. There are ways we can use corporations as means to achieve fundamental human values, but corporations do not of themselves work for these values. In fact, left to themselves, they can be serious threats to human values that conflict with the goal of corporate profit.

Corporations are a particular threat to truth, a value essential in a democracy, which places a premium on the informed decisions of individual citizens. The corporate threat is most apparent in advertising, which explicitly aims at convincing us to prefer a product regardless of its actual merit.

But even more important is the role of corporations in debates over public policy. Here their immense financial resources give them a privileged position — especially through lobbying — to argue not for what they think is the truth but for what promises to promote their profits. It’s a sign of corporations’ power that their views are often treated on a par with those of advocacy groups (from the ACLU to the N.R.A.) that are, at least to some serious extent, arguing for what their members actually believe. In debates on any issue affecting them, the arguments that corporations advance receive extraordinary consideration, even though we know full well that corporate views express not convictions but self-interest.

But, you may object, what’s wrong with self-interest? Aren’t all parties to political debate moved by some sort of self-interest? In fact, isn’t the point of our political process to make a decision that somehow balances these conflicting interests? Actually, no. Many participants in policy debates hold strong convictions, independent or even opposed to their self-interest. Liberals support higher taxes for themselves, conservatives reject government programs that would assist them, those advantaged by racial and gender discrimination vote to end it. Our democracy depends on our willingness to support decisions we see as right even if they work to our disadvantage.

Corporations, however, are typically immune to such considerations since their defining goal is to generate profit. Individuals running corporations may well be civic-minded and altruistic and may try to make company policies work for the public good. They may also be motivated by excellence — making a good product or providing a service useful to many people. But ultimately profit is king. The very nature of a corporation makes profits essential; those that lose money will not survive.

There are cases when telling the truth is the best means to advance corporate profits. In 1982, when seven people in Chicago died from poisoned Tylenol, Johnson & Johnson appealed to its credo, which makes concern for its customers a primary corporate goal, and told the entire truth about what had happened. This honesty turned a potential public-relations disaster into a triumph.

It’s not, however, unfair to ask what Johnson & Johnson — or any other company — would have done if there were a deceptive response that seemed likely to prove more profitable in the long run. Even Johnson & Johnson’s impressive corporate credo ends by saying, “Our final responsibility is to our stockholders” and “Business must make a solid profit.” The credo is unclear about what happens when there is a conflict between responsible action and long-term profit.

Given their raison d’être, when push comes to shove corporations will honor their commitments to shareholders’ profit. Moreover, from the profit standpoint that defines a corporation, it is clear that the appearance of social responsibility is worth far more than the thing itself. Truth is not a primary corporate value.

None of this means that corporations are evil or that socialism should replace the free-enterprise system. As Michel Foucault said of all power structures, it’s not that corporations are bad but that they are dangerous. The self-serving corporate speech that fills our media and halls of government is particularly dangerous for our democracy. At least for this reason, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are right to distrust corporations.

Jason P

If anything, there should be limits on campaign funds that top out at a certain dollar amount depending on what office you are running for. AP reports have Obama's warchest hovering around $200M ... and there is still a year to go before elections ... that's a lot of favors owed.

Somebody that gives an excessive amount to a political campaign is looking for something in return unless they are fools. Most successful businesses are not run by fools. Unions are not run by fools.

Money is the root of corruption in American politics. We need campaign limits. $40M for a presidential run. $8M for as Senate Run. $3M for a House run. Once the limits are set, I know who the politicians will be kissing ass to and it wont be someone paying $10K to have lunch with them.

gimmesometruth27

usamamasan1 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

clarence thomas (especially his wife) are corporate whores all the way..

what a shame, some beliefs on this forum. So filled with hate. This prominent black individual can tell an extremely convincing story about how rewarding it was to pull himslef up by his own bootstraps out of poverty to a position of eminence and recognition. My countries youth deserve better than what is doled out to them by the likes of Van Jones, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and AMT blinders....



that is why I am here....to help

i am part of many corporations. We are all people. Not faceless trolls.

WOOT

please do not come in here and derail the thread by trashing other prominent african americans because they are democrats. those people you listed have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about the montana or us supreme courts.

have you read anything about how thomas refuses to recuse himself from cases when his wife's business dealings and profitting from such rulings create an obvious conflict of interest for thomas?

my guess is no. please inform yourself.

so until you read up on that i will consider you being here to troll instead of "help"..

please do not post in my threads for the sake of derailing them. it muddies the discussion.

thank you.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

If anything, there should be limits on campaign funds that top out at a certain dollar amount depending on what office you are running for. AP reports have Obama's warchest hovering around $200M ... and there is still a year to go before elections ... that's a lot of favors owed.

Somebody that gives an excessive amount to a political campaign is looking for something in return unless they are fools. Most successful businesses are not run by fools. Unions are not run by fools.

Money is the root of corruption in American politics. We need campaign limits. $40M for a presidential run. $8M for as Senate Run. $3M for a House run. Once the limits are set, I know who the politicians will be kissing ass to and it wont be someone paying $10K to have lunch with them.

i say we go back to publicly funding campaigns.

MayDay Malone

CH156378 wrote:

Is A moving Train a person? It's made up of people, lots of them.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.

Corporations ARE just groups of people. Employers, employees, shareholders.

Why are we attacking Wall Street. Claiming the "Main Street"?

Why are we attacking ANY "street" in this country?

Obama's class warfare has to go.

gimmesometruth27

MayDay Malone wrote:

CH156378 wrote:

Is A moving Train a person? It's made up of people, lots of them.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.

Corporations ARE just groups of people. Employers, employees, shareholders.

Why are we attacking Wall Street. Claiming the "Main Street"?

Why are we attacking ANY "street" in this country?

Obama's class warfare has to go.

obama's class warfare?

can you clarify exactly what that is?

sounds like something i hear rush or fox news say...

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

If anything, there should be limits on campaign funds that top out at a certain dollar amount depending on what office you are running for. AP reports have Obama's warchest hovering around $200M ... and there is still a year to go before elections ... that's a lot of favors owed.

Somebody that gives an excessive amount to a political campaign is looking for something in return unless they are fools. Most successful businesses are not run by fools. Unions are not run by fools.

Money is the root of corruption in American politics. We need campaign limits. $40M for a presidential run. $8M for as Senate Run. $3M for a House run. Once the limits are set, I know who the politicians will be kissing ass to and it wont be someone paying $10K to have lunch with them.

i say we go back to publicly funding campaigns.

how about simply publically funded debates. that is it. in real debate format. not the moderators giving time to who they want to win.
why is it necessary to be bombarded by publically funded misinformation ads on television? (I am not suggesting you are for such things)

put them on a stage, ask them all the same question and make people write, by hand, the name of the person they support rather than check a box on a computer. I am saddened to realize that my last statement is impossible in today's American culture because I have a feeling if I stopped 100 people today, most couldn't even name the sitting attorney general or more than one member of the supreme court...or even tell me the three branches of government...sad...makes me sad to think about it...
Citizens United is certainly right inline with the special interest domination of our government...that simple...and people think we have had free market capitalism in this country...

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

CH156378 wrote:

Is A moving Train a person? It's made up of people, lots of them.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.

Corporations ARE just groups of people. Employers, employees, shareholders.

Why are we attacking Wall Street. Claiming the "Main Street"?

Why are we attacking ANY "street" in this country?

Obama's class warfare has to go.

obama's class warfare?

can you clarify exactly what that is?

sounds like something i hear rush or fox news say...

Check out his Kansas speech a few weeks back. (and we both know you don't listen to Rush or watch Fox news)

gimmesometruth27

MayDay Malone wrote:

Check out his Kansas speech a few weeks back.

i will check that out if you check out the class warfare being waged on the poor in the form of cutting benefits for unemployment, welfare, medicare and medicaid...

i can call class warfare just as easily as you can..

"class warfare" is just a buzzword to create and emotional response...

but back on topic, i don't see how the us supreme court can over rule this when montana has the benefit of actual state history and how the elimination of corporate funding has dractically reduced the likelihood of corruption. the us supreme court has painted themselves into a tricky legal corner...

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Check out his Kansas speech a few weeks back.

i will check that out if you check out the class warfare being waged on the poor in the form of cutting benefits for unemployment, welfare, medicare and medicaid...

i can call class warfare just as easily as you can..

"class warfare" is just a buzzword to create and emotional response...

but back on topic, i don't see how the us supreme court can over rule this when montana has the benefit of actual state history and how the elimination of corporate funding has dractically reduced the likelihood of corruption. the us supreme court has painted themselves into a tricky legal corner...

Your plan wages war on the middle-class to pay for a nanny state. You and Obama use class warfare to advance your socialist, share-the-wealth agenda.

But, whatever... this case is going nowhere.

gimmesometruth27

MayDay Malone wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

MayDay Malone wrote:

Check out his Kansas speech a few weeks back.

i will check that out if you check out the class warfare being waged on the poor in the form of cutting benefits for unemployment, welfare, medicare and medicaid...

i can call class warfare just as easily as you can..

"class warfare" is just a buzzword to create and emotional response...

but back on topic, i don't see how the us supreme court can over rule this when montana has the benefit of actual state history and how the elimination of corporate funding has dractically reduced the likelihood of corruption. the us supreme court has painted themselves into a tricky legal corner...

Your plan wages war on the middle-class to pay for a nanny state. You and Obama use class warfare to advance your socialist, share-the-wealth agenda.

But, whatever... this case is going nowhere.

sounds exactly like a fox news editorial or glenn beck rant. filled with more buzz terms...

ever do any thinking on your own?

you should try it. you seem like a pretty smart guy a lot of the time. i would like to read what you really think as opposed to just reading your talking points..

but AGAIN, back on topic....

what happens if other state supreme courts begin to make rulings opposite of the citizens united decision? will the us supreme court reconsider it's ruling?

blueandwhite

usamamasan1 wrote:

i am part of many corporations. We are all people. Not faceless trolls.

WOOT

You may be part of many corporations; that doesn't make a corporation a human being. A corporation is a simple collective of people; nothing more and nothing less. Once you start giving corporations political authority, you diminish the political will of your actual populous. Why should a corporation have the right to speak politically? Don't the individuals who make up that corporation already have that right? I can't think of anything less democratic than empowering a corporate entity with a political voice.

You may be a person, but a corporation is a faceless entity.

gimmesometruth27

i think debates should be publicly funded as well. have a fair moderator who would ask questions of all candidates equally and make the candidates adhere to the time limits, and force them to actually answer the questions instead of wasting their time thinking about an answer or attacking others on the stage without answering with their views or their plan. i think if we get the corporate media out of that then there would be less network or moderator favoritism demonstrated. to me watching these debates, the network or the moderators are framing and shaping the campaign by not allowing those that are not the frontrunners to have much tv time.

i think publicly funded attack ads and robocalls would be less prevalent than those put out there by special interests, superpacs, or corporations with an agenda. if there was a limited amount of money available to each candidate i think they would be more prudent with the way they spend it.

and i agree about the state of the uninformed electorate. it is pretty sad when a lot of americans can not pass a 9th grade civics class...

mikepegg44 wrote:

how about simply publically funded debates. that is it. in real debate format. not the moderators giving time to who they want to win.
why is it necessary to be bombarded by publically funded misinformation ads on television? (I am not suggesting you are for such things)

put them on a stage, ask them all the same question and make people write, by hand, the name of the person they support rather than check a box on a computer. I am saddened to realize that my last statement is impossible in today's American culture because I have a feeling if I stopped 100 people today, most couldn't even name the sitting attorney general or more than one member of the supreme court...or even tell me the three branches of government...sad...makes me sad to think about it...
Citizens United is certainly right inline with the special interest domination of our government...that simple...and people think we have had free market capitalism in this country...

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i think debates should be publicly funded as well. have a fair moderator who would ask questions of all candidates equally and make the candidates adhere to the time limits, and force them to actually answer the questions instead of wasting their time thinking about an answer or attacking others on the stage without answering with their views or their plan. i think if we get the corporate media out of that then there would be less network or moderator favoritism demonstrated. to me watching these debates, the network or the moderators are framing and shaping the campaign by not allowing those that are not the frontrunners to have much tv time.

i think publicly funded attack ads and robocalls would be less prevalent than those put out there by special interests, superpacs, or corporations with an agenda. if there was a limited amount of money available to each candidate i think they would be more prudent with the way they spend it.

and i agree about the state of the uninformed electorate. it is pretty sad when a lot of americans can not pass a 9th grade civics class...

mikepegg44 wrote:

how about simply publically funded debates. that is it. in real debate format. not the moderators giving time to who they want to win.
why is it necessary to be bombarded by publically funded misinformation ads on television? (I am not suggesting you are for such things)

put them on a stage, ask them all the same question and make people write, by hand, the name of the person they support rather than check a box on a computer. I am saddened to realize that my last statement is impossible in today's American culture because I have a feeling if I stopped 100 people today, most couldn't even name the sitting attorney general or more than one member of the supreme court...or even tell me the three branches of government...sad...makes me sad to think about it...
Citizens United is certainly right inline with the special interest domination of our government...that simple...and people think we have had free market capitalism in this country...

Gimme, name one thing that you think should NOT be publicly funded...

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

The logomachy over the term "corporation" as being the same or not as "person" could (and probably will) go on forever. The heart of the matter is really what counts here. The problem, as I see it, is that most corporations lack heart and therefore because all people have hearts it is my opinion that most corporations are not people.

:thumbup:

welcome back Brian.

gimmesometruth27

bailouts of banks and corporations.

federal subsidies and tax breaks for said corporations

bonuses for employees of companies that have been bailed out or made money off of the backs of the poor: ie,
lending companies that made bad loans

government contractors that are doing the same jobs as our soldiers at 3-4 times the pay

i can go on, but those are just at the top of my head...

again, discuss the topic, not me.

i do not want this thread to get locked due to some people's inability to have a grown up discussion about something that can expose the us supreme court as the political hacks that they are...

MayDay Malone wrote:

Gimme, name one thing that you think should NOT be publicly funded...

pandora

Well... corporations are not individual people and they do not speak for individual people
but they may speak for business in general and may want to make donations to support
what will help their business and in turn perhaps help the economy and those working within
the corporation.... the individual person.

Also maybe corporation donations are more tax deductible
and personally deniable sneaky stuff

corporations are not our enemy they are our backbone ... yes no maybe so ?

MayDay Malone

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

bailouts of banks and corporations.

federal subsidies and tax breaks for said corporations

bonuses for employees of companies that have been bailed out or made money off of the backs of the poor: ie,
lending companies that made bad loans

government contractors that are doing the same jobs as our soldiers at 3-4 times the pay

i can go on, but those are just at the top of my head...

again, discuss the topic, not me.

i do not want this thread to get locked due to some people's inability to have a grown up discussion about something that can expose the us supreme court as the political hacks that they are...

MayDay Malone wrote:

Gimme, name one thing that you think should NOT be publicly funded...

Thanks for this. I enjoyed it, and won $5 in the process.

Have a good day.

gimmesometruth27

pandora wrote:

Well... corporations are not individual people and they do not speak for individual people
but they may speak for business in general and may want to make donations to support
what will help their business and in turn perhaps help the economy and those working within
the corporation.... the individual person.

Also maybe corporation donations are more tax deductible
and personally deniable sneaky stuff

corporations are not our enemy they are our backbone ... yes no maybe so ?

citizens united essentially ruled that corporations ARE people, and as people they have the right to free speech, and under free speech they are allowed to give unlimited amounts to condidates of their choosing.

corporations are NOT people and giving money is NOT free speech.

how is a candidate that raises $5 million legitimately going to compete with a candidate that received $15 million from a single corporation/corporate donor? the answer is they can't.

pandora, you might be fine with corporations influencing who gets elected, but i am not. i want corporate interests out of politics and i do not want them influencing our domestic and foreign policies.

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pandora wrote:

Well... corporations are not individual people and they do not speak for individual people
but they may speak for business in general and may want to make donations to support
what will help their business and in turn perhaps help the economy and those working within
the corporation.... the individual person.

Also maybe corporation donations are more tax deductible
and personally deniable sneaky stuff

corporations are not our enemy they are our backbone ... yes no maybe so ?

citizens united essentially ruled that corporations ARE people, and as people they have the right to free speech, and under free speech they are allowed to give unlimited amounts to condidates of their choosing.

corporations are NOT people and giving money is NOT free speech.

how is a candidate that raises $5 million legitimately going to compete with a candidate that received $15 million from a single corporation/corporate donor? the answer is they can't.

pandora, you might be fine with corporations influencing who gets elected, but i am not. i want corporate interests out of politics and i do not want them influencing our domestic and foreign policies.

I don't have a problem with big business.
I would imagine corporations already are doing just that...
influencing policy but in the guise of individuals not sure how this really changes anything ...
seems redundant ...

but I also think donations might be out of control and who needs millions to run a campaign
the greedy do I guess

here's where the problem lies, we let the monster get too big
and it's eating everything in sight

how to kill a monster ....
get a bigger monster