Romney in Iowa: 'Corporations are people'

thats what I just stated, is there an echo in here?

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Corporations and unions are not inanimate objects.

They are not objects therefore whether they are animate or not is specious.

Clearer now?

 

Blues;

　
　
Which makes them a thing, not a person. Thanks for finally coming to your senses.
　
　

　
　
Who said the individual gives up their rights when they think the same as others?? Corporations/businesses and/or unions are not people, neither are schools, churches, the NRA, Donald Trumps hair, my garden, or your shoes. NONE ARE PEOPLE!! They are things, people just happen to own them or control them. My garden I own, my dog I control, that doesn't mean they should be meddling in and/or participating in the election process.
　
　
You've already admitted they are not people, stop while real people can take you serious.
　
　

　
　
Assembly's don't vote, individuals do. Is this too complicated for you to grasp? The USSC has/had no business calling a thing, people. Things are not people. Words have meanings you know.

 

But not an object, you still need to find yours.
　
　

Those who want to prohibt those people from acting under their assemblies.

That is all they are, people acting in their mutual self interest.

 

　
Entity, object, a thing same difference none are people.
　
　

　
　
Assembling isn't the problem, it's when they use the entities money to double dip in the election process that it becomes a problem. But you already know that. Entities should not be donating anything to an election campaign, period. That’s a bribe.
　
　

　
　
Good if they want to assemble as a group that is fine, and talk about issues of the day, or discuss the proper way to make lemonade, more power too you.
But businesses/corporations/unions/churches/special interest groups (nonprofit or for profit)/foreign countries or citizens of another country/any individual who can not legally vote for the candidate running for office shouldn't be allowed to donate funds/time/resources to that campaign. Same with donating to a particular party so the money can be distributed out to other candidates, the source cannot legally cast a vote for, shouldn’t be allowed either. It’s unethical, for someone outside of the electing body to manipulate an election, period.
　
There is already enough fraud without compounding the problem.

 

Corporations and unions have as much right to participate in government as individual people! Since neither one is entitled to a vote, they have other means in order to solicit their preferences...

 

Nope, a corporation is just a legal enitity set up by the people which make it up. It is not an object. You can't smell it, you can't taste it, you can't hold it, you can't feel it, you can't even see it.　
　

I would suggest you go read the law and the ruling. Forming a corporation or joining on is just another form of free assembly.　
　

Or make money, of pursue political interest, or help the poor, or race cars or any of the myriad of things people do.

Except for the foreign countries of course they should, it is one way people express their political views and protect their interest from undue political interference.

I believe foreign citizens are prohibited from direct political donations but I will stand to be corrected.
　

You seem to make the specious assertion that any campaign donation from a group of citizens formed in a corporation would be fraudulent.

 

IMHO if you cannot legally vote for a candidate, it is criminal to donate to their cause. You are interfering with the election process. An election you were not meant to be a part of, period. The government doesn’t dictate my opinion, and the government is wrong on this one, as they usually are.
　
　
If you are an individual you have a right to donate to any politician you can legally vote for. If you donate money and then your business donates money you are donating twice. That is unethical, and a deliberate attempt to sway an election or bribe a public official.
　
　
Question is, why do you not see that is the case?
　
　

 

Last I checked citizens in corporations can vote and are you asserting that the illegal alien groups should be prohibited from taking out political ads to support their cause?

You are engaged in free speech and freedom of assembly.

Apparently not.　
　

And do you have the right to free assembly and the right to free speech? Shall we ban PETA from expressing their political opinions?

Nothing unethical and no bribe.
　

 

Obviously you are misunderstanding what I am saying (deliberately I assume), and have said from the beginning.
　
　
Assembling or speaking freely about issues is one thing, donating millions of dollars to endorse or damage a potential candidate or promote a political party to deliberately upset the results of an election with lies or political banter/propaganda is tampering with the election process. The laws of the land are and should be designed to protect the integrity of the election process, not degrade it.
　
So instead of the court identifying all entities as people, they should have stopped the unions from continuing the unethical practice of donating large quantities of cash to support a political cause or endorse a candidate or promote a political party.
　
Entities have every right to provide information to the public, discuss issues, even allow open forums for debate if they choose too, but they should not be involved in the election process itself. That is an individual right, not a mob rule. Each individual in these “entities” do have a constitutional right to donate cash (IMHO they should only be allowed to donate a political candidate they can cast a legal vote for in limited quantities. My own belief is $100.00 per candidate only.) to a political cause or endorse a candidate or promote a political party. That is their legal constitutional right, as it is with any other legal citizen in this country, and that right can and should only be granted to individual people. PERIOD.
　
Just like non-profits (churches, and organizations involved in educational, scientific endeavors, animal rights etc&#8230, free speech rights and the ability to peacefully assemble is already broadly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Clergy for instance can and do address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and things like the death penalty, etc… etc...
　
　
Discussion of public interests is a common practice in all non-profit institutions all over America, and they are free to discuss the issues of the day, to promote the betterment of their communities by bringing it to the attention of the citizens who make up those communities, but they cannot and should not endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources (money influence, etc&#8230 in partisan politics and/or campaigns.
　
This is what the USSC should have said rather than make the asinine assumption that just because they say so, corporations/businesses/unions etc… are to be considered from this date forward, people, when they obviously, and categorically are not by any definition or by any stretch of the imagination.
　

I cannot explain it any clearer than that.

 

No. We should ban PETA from making corporate donations to political campaigns, since citizens can already donate individually and non-citizens have memberships in PETA.
As you can see on their membership site (https://secure.peta.org/site/Donation2?df_id=2020&2020.donation=form1&autologin=true) They accept donations from anywhere in the world, regardless of citizenship or voter status.

The same holds for any corporation. There is no way to separate citizens' donations from foreign donations. Prohibiting corporate donations would take away that avenue of foreign influence without prohibiting citizens themselves from donating if they wish.

 

Good post. Romney showed who he is really working for and its not the middle class.