Romney in Iowa: 'Corporations are people'

Right. The PEOPLE have the right to spend their money on political speech. How does an inanimate object (the Corporation) have that right?

Bear in mind, my statements on this also apply to Unions. They shouldn't be allowed to donate to campaigns either. If an entity can't vote, it shouldn't be able to contribute. Only Citizens should be able to donate to campaigns not inanimate objects.

 

A labor union comes under the right to collective bargaining. A corporation is a for profit business, an inantimant object that is desined soley to make profits that sells "interests" in the public sector who then gamble on its success. (I went through this wih Rebellion once already). A labor union, by defintion cannot operate on a profit and therefore your comparrison falls flat.

 

I have mixed feelings about this because I actually understand that corporations are legal entities created on paper. But the Supreme Court protects the rights of "people" or "groups" equally; so when you are talking about a group of people, the word People in the US Constitution applies to them. This is the argument used to give corporations personhood, which I disagree with, but Romney is simply summarizing the Supreme Courts legal view. Effectively he is right, as much as it pains me to say it. It's also the legal argument for giving homosexuals the Right to marry, as they are a "group" recognized by law as being similarly situated with a group that IS allowed to marry. Points if you understood that.

I think the danger is confusing a flesh-and-blood person with an entity created our of State charter Law.

 

How can an inanimate object donate money at all?

What do you mean "they" shouldn't?

 

Exactly. Now you are getting it.

Unions should not be able to donate money. If the people who make up that union want to donate money themselves, more power to them. The Union should not be able to.

 

They are both groups of people who can act collectively to spend private moneys.

 

Actually, I'm not getting it. If the corporation is an "inanimate object", then how can it do anything, let alone donate money? If it's physically impossible for a corporation (an inanimate object) to donate money as you contend, then what, exactly, are you worried about?

I don't see the difference. How can the "union" donate without the consent of the individuals that comprise it?

 

Does the supreme court protect gamblers? Because when we breakdown a corporation to its lowest common demo iator; that what we get: gamblers laying money on table on "odds" called ratings. And then they spin the big wheel. The "house" in this case would be Wall Street. Corporations are a completley different thing than tangible human interests. They are set up; to protect assests and raise capital - that's it.

 

It is physically impossible for the corporation to do anything on its own. Only the people who comprise it can do things.

However, as the law is right now, the corporation is treated as if it is a person. Effectively, a person working for a corporation is a person twice. They can contribute as an individual, then as a corporation. Which makes no sense. How can a corporation be considered a person when it isn't even animate?

Because Unions are not completely democratic. The people who comprise them hand over spending authority to those in charge.

Its much like the US government, it donate money to dozens of governments worldwide. Did you give it that consent or approve of its action when it sent aid to the Saudi government?

 

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

Precisely my point. Those people have rights.

No, the "law" (which is actually a judicial precedent) holds that the people comprising the corporation may take corporate moneys and use them for political purposes.

The person donating the corporate money is well within his or her rights to do so. It is privately owned money that certain people are contractually entitled to dispense of.

Exactly. They give the money to the union executives and the union executives spend it on what they are contractually entitled to spend it on. Simple.

 

Then it should be in the name of those private individuals, not in the name of the Corporation.

The corporation is an inanimate object that cannot take any action on its own. So how can it possibly contribute to a political campaign? It can't. Private individuals are contributing. Not the corporation. Those donations should be in those people's names.

 

I'm not sure that it's any of your business.

 

While I agree with you that Corporations should not be treated as people... holy crap this is a terrible analogy. You really don't understand corporations at all.... it is not a big gamble. How many big corporations lose and go bust?

 

It is my business. People who work for corporations or in a union shouldn't get double the rights of any other American.

I want equal rights. The easy way to do that is to limit campaign financing to "Citizens" not "persons".

 

Nobody is getting "double the rights" of anyone. You have the same right as them to seek employment with a corporation, enter into an employment contract (assuming they hire you), and dispense of corporate funds in a manner consistent with your employment contract.

 

That's bull(*)(*)(*)(*). A person in a corporation and a person working in a single proprietorship do not have the same rights. The corporate worker gets double the political speech as the private citizen. They can donate as themselves and as a corporation.

That is complete crap. Equal rights for all. Either give private citizens more speech or limit it only to citizens being able to donate.

 

Of course they have the same rights. Nothing is stopping the person in a sole proprietorship from creating a corporation.

They get only as much "political speech" as they are lawfully entitled to and nothing more. The corporate money is owned by someone and they can decide how to spend it. It's their right as the owner of the money.

 

I'm taking significant exception to M.Romney's comment that 'Corporations are People!" as I've just seen on CSPAN.

I don't recall any corporations being drafted to serve in Vietnam.

I don't believe that corporations have a right to vote in any civil elections in this country including federal elections.

I'm a little uncertain as to whether 'corporate people' are allowed to bear arms in this country.

May I marry a corporate body, independent of its stated sexual orientation?

Can corporations be deported upon being found to engaged in illegal overseas activities or defrauding the government of this country?

Can a corporation be sentenced to federal or state prison for violating the laws of this country?

For some reason, Mr. Romney is very confused about the nature of people and abstractions about people and should apologize to the people of this country before he is mistaken for another 'silly' Republican who is a token of the corporate citizens he serves.

I suppose that its no wonder that the US now relies on a mercenary armed force (voluntary is a bit of a stretch given the costs and budget requirements, particularly for the Nato generals,etc contributing a couple thousand members combined).

Over half of military support overseas is sub-contracted out to corporations able to deal with the corruption that occurs there. But that's just the military-industrial complex all grown up, despite Eisenhower's warnings so long ago.

Corporations are legal fictions to allow groups of people to avoid individual responsibility for their actions. It seemed like a good idea at the time to encourage business.


And that this is the best that the Republicans can offer as an election choice speaks volumes about the effectiveness of PACs and lobbies. How many 'people' have lobbies as compared with corporations?

 

hmmm, then they should be taxed.......another break int eh faulty Tea Bag logic....but they never had logic to begin with.

 

Drool elsewhere please.

 

Corporations are granted charters to represent the public interest. "Interests" in this case represents privte and other monies "invested" as stock: money on the line. Gambling interests must receive licensing and permits as "permission", the same way a corporation receives a chater (permission) t operate in the public interest; representing a for profit or not for profit
organization.

Many corporations go under for various reasons; like gamblers go under for various reasons; so I don't get your point on that. And, no matter how you slice it, the stock market is gambling: it's not a sure thing . . .

 

Cars are people. They are owned, operated and started by people.

The inane logic of the far right never ceases to amuse.

 

What's the scariest of all is that liberals cannot grasp that Romney is right. Corporations are 100% people.

Do idiot liberals think its robots or something ? Its shareholders. 401K folks like me. Employees and their families.

And that is what is scariest. The incredible stupidity and largesse of the American liberal class-envy parasite. That is the cancer on us all. Folks that hold political views such as you are the tumor on America's ass.

TFM. What you think doesn't scare me. It does make me cringe though. It disapoints me. Liberalism is the enemy amongst us.

 

This is the dumbest post of the week, at least that I have read.

Tell me what the "charter" is with a "for profit" company ? Where the "public interest" clause is ?

No chit. Your post is the stupidest, dumbest, most ignorant, idiotic, pile of crap here.

Pathetic.

 

double dip? really? I don't think so.

Individuals of a corporation do not speak with one voice. A corporation does not speak for its workforce with a singular voice.