"that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and that the rights of human beings will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property."

The limited-government-unlimited-
corporate-power conservatives are going to hate this.

YAWN

YAWN

#2 | Posted by glasshouse

Loves Wall Street banks.

Nah not all, I can agree with them on this. Never got behind the corp. personhood thing.

Of course I think liberal lobbyist should be banned and most college students over 30yrs old should be shot, but that's just me.

#2 | POSTED BY GLASSHOUSE AT 2012-01-06 06:53 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Open Mouth, Insert Foot. Or Whatever.

Basically, these "notable forums" want to gut freedom of assembly/speech.

Want to end corporate "personhood"? Fine. Unions, non-profits, small companies- GE to ACLU to SEIU to your local grocer would have no right to speak out in an election about Obama signing the NDAA, or Bloomberg banning transfat, or Governor Walker's legislation relating to union rights.

Talk about a "poison pill."

No difference between a "corporation and a union".

#6 | Posted by adammm

What you have understand about rightwing libertarians, folks, is that while they'll complain about some bank bailouts, they oppose anything that could actually reign in concentrated economic power. And it's an open question if even a constitutional amendment could do it, given the iron grip on the State by capitalists AKA corporate America.

In response to your deflationary one, the only thing that can properly reign in concentrated economic power is the consumer. We only have ourselves to blame, through our voluntary purchases, for big business.

Anything to actually address about my thread-relevant #6?

"the only thing that can properly reign in concentrated economic power is the consumer. "

That's classic right-libertarian bullshit. Consumers don't have perfect information--as defined by classical economics--about even one product they purchase, much less thousands.

Guess not. That's another topic for another thread, null. Back to this one, do you realize that ending corporate person-hood would mean the AFL-CIO and SEIU would be muzzled in saying anything, sending any email or pamphlet, anything, in opposition to Governor Walker in an election? The ACLU couldn't comment on Governors pushing voter ID laws during election seasons.

Hmm something's missing here, Unions and non profits. If OWS was anything other than a left wing propaganda tool an if Libtards like nullifidian and LetUsPrey has any real interest in changing the system they would propose an amendment that limited all corporation and union campaign and advertizing finance. We see that not the case so you guys really have nothing to offer but the usual Republicans and Corporations bad and government and unions good crap.

given the iron grip on the State by capitalists AKA corporate America.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

Finally, after all this time, they come up with one single fucking goal.

u must mean Goldman Sachs ..
...
#14 | Posted by L_E_Light

Of course, I do. Are U a teenager? U post like one.

"Finally, after all this time, they come up with one single fucking goal."

Yeah, now all of you can stop whining that they don't have a 10 point program/Contract on America/major party platform, etc.

Unions, non-profits, small companies- GE to ACLU to SEIU to your local grocer would have no right to speak out in an election about Obama signing the NDAA, or Bloomberg banning transfat, or Governor Walker's legislation relating to union rights.

Talk about a "poison pill."

Where does non-personhood fit into that? The basic issue is the supposed Constitutional "right" of corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to any politician they want.

FALSE. Citizens United allowed companies to air their own ads. They are still barred from donating to campaigns.

All those things are corporations, North. If they don't get speech rights, that's the consequence.

Or rather, covered by C.U. I realize unions are not legal corporations, but are treated equally by the scotus.

"Back to this one, do you realize that ending corporate person-hood would mean the AFL-CIO and SEIU would be muzzled in saying anything"

Do you realize Unions would take that in a minute, as corporate money swamps Union cash? Or did you get to the "Unions, bad" portion of your research and stop there?

Are U a teenager? U post like one.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian

"All those things are corporations,"

Baloney. They are artificial entities. Unions don't have corporate personhood, nor do non-profits, nor do unincorporated companies.

Alright, let's just focus on the straight-up corporations in the CU decision. Should Fox News, MSNBC, CNN all be barred from discussing elections, since it can be considered electioneering? How about publishers of news magazines and papers? They're all biased, and all corporations. So what if they're press? And if their "press" trumps their corporate agenda, then why doesn't Walmart start it's own newspaper?

And how on earth can money not be speech? If you guy a marker and posterboard to make some lame sign, you just spent money on political speech. If ten homeowners pool their funds to buy a tv ad protesting eminent domain abuse, that's money as speech. If money isn't speech, then all we're entitled to is shouting on the street corner.

*If a guy buys... he

If money is free speech, than those with the most money have the most free speech. Why don't you rightwing libertarians advocate going back to the days when only property owners could vote? It would be at least consistent.

So you want to limit money then? To what? What about homeless people? They have a right to speak but no money, so they'll always be discriminated against ANY money is allowed to be spent.

I'm being realistic, not "rightwing libertarian" here. If money ISN'T free speech, then how the hell do we do anything?

Here is you Libtard/ OWS hypocrisy on display

Wall Street money for Warren

I thought Elizabeth Warren was all about transparency. We are all still waiting for her to file the required financial disclosure form.

The Oklahoma Professor has been criticizing Scott Brown for being "Wall Street's favorite Senator." She has also denounced "Wall Street cash in politics."

But it turns out she may be indirectly accepting Wall Street money. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is helping the Harvard Professor, has taken over $40 million from Wall Street during the last 7 years according to records from OpenSecrets.org. In fact, Wall Street is the biggest contributors to them. They beat lawyers and labor union. Just during this election season the DSCC has already received $1.5 million from Wall Street.

If Lizzy Warden is truly opposed to Wall Street money, then shouldn't she reject the DSCC's money? Otherwise she is just using the DSCC to funnel in Wall Street money.

www.bostonherald.com

#29 | Posted by paneocon

Home
Herald Blogs
Lone Republican

Great, a link from a blogger named "Lone Republican". LOL.

OWS speaks and morons listen.

The federal government is a big monopoly, and all these gripes by the left and the right are mostly due to the problems with monopolies and they can't be fixed.

These attempts to control the money in politics will never work, in fact they will just make things worse because the challenger will have less resources to fight the incumbent.

Those campaign laws would have made it harder unseat a Congressmen or a Senator.

"Want to end corporate "personhood"? Fine. Unions, non-profits, small companies- GE to ACLU to SEIU to your local grocer would have no right to speak out in an election about Obama signing the NDAA, or Bloomberg banning transfat, or Governor Walker's legislation relating to union rights."

Citizens United, as I understand it, is about money as speech, not simply about speaking out as a group. I've never heard anyone claim that killing corporate personhood would kill lobbying. Is that your assertion? If so, is the interpretation original to you, or can you cite legal arguments? (Or do you want to mount the extended legal argument yourself?)

I don't think unions or corporations (the groups, not the individuals in them) should be able to contribute directly to campaign coffers. I have no problem with such groups making endorsements. (I might have a problem with the fact that they don't represent all their members when they do so, but I don't have a problem with the "external" action, so to speak.)

(This speaks to Glass's #7, as well.)
+++++

Interesting assertion that CU was about a company making its own ads. I'd never heard that one before either. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention.

Has anyone else heard this before?

Btw, I would think that the homeowners making an ad about eminent domain, or against a pol in favor of it, would fall under freedom of assembly more than corporate personhood, given that such a group of people is not incorporated.

If corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, then why do police need a warrant to search a business?
Every time I ask that question the OWS anti-business types go quiet. What they really want is to get around the Bill of Rights so they can oppress their enemy: prosperity.

"If corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, then why do police need a warrant to search a business?"

Do you not think there are other laws that address this? I think it's a huge leap from property rights to speech rights when talking about corporations. But I don't know the case law here.

Your last line is just nonsense, just as lame as common assertions that all Republicans want to push Grandma off a cliff.

"Every time I ask that question the OWS anti-business types go quiet."

I generally do the same thing when the village idiot speaks to me. I get quiet because I don't want to set off the lunatic.

""Want to end corporate "personhood"? Fine. Unions, non-profits, small companies- GE to ACLU to SEIU to your local grocer would have no right to speak out in an election about Obama signing the NDAA, or Bloomberg banning transfat, or Governor Walker's legislation relating to union rights."

perhaps, though not necessarily true, but every single member of those unions, every owner of any company, every person would have the right to speak out and to be able to actually expect not to be drowned out by unlimited spending on TV ads by some corporate entity or Superpac.
Getting the money out of politics is the single most important issue of our time, we will never fix our nation as long as corporations, with no allegiance to the US, are allowed to use their money to buy Congress. AS it is today corporations get tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, do you honestly think that would be true if corporations had no right to participate in our political system?

"I generally do the same thing when the village idiot speaks to me."

Oooh! Danni called me a name!
Now answer the question I asked: why do police need a warrant to search a business if corporations have no rights? Can you answer it, Danni, or are you the village idiot talking to herself?

And why would we care about what Occupied While Stupid wants?

I don't know, MSGT. You care enough to make a stupid insulting name.

You remind me of the teenager who says, "I don't care; fuck you."

Do humans "absorb" or "merge" with other humans? Only cannibals and Buffalo Bill do that. And often the result of either are jobs cut.

Not very responsible with real peoples lives whatsoever.

LOL Prag because I actually do not care what they want.

Fair enough. What do you think of corporate personhood?