Sources: Lamar Smith, Harry Reid, NPR [$1 lobbyist = $222 tax breaks]
quote: First off, I was merely telling a previous poster about the two ways the law could be changed. How does that make me a radical?
quote: I already know that you don't agree with either option, but that doesn't give you the right to assume that I am advocating either when all I said was that both were options.
quote: I am not advocating a sharp turn from capitalism or a citizen's freedom of expression. All I am offering is minor tunings to the current structure to make it more in tune with the sentiment of some of the other posters.
quote: I bet you are still outraged by the Twenty-First Amendment "breaking" the Eighteen Amendment.
quote: Banning corporations assumes that people have a right to form corporations. They do not.
quote: Corporations are like driving, people don't have a right to get into a car and drive, neither do people with regard to corporations.
quote: The ruling is wrong because corporations are not equivalent to people.
quote: Corporations on the other hand, are faceless entities that allow a small group of individuals to use laws, unequal in application, to amplify their speech in a manner that is often contrary to the will of the individuals subsidizing that message. Now you tell me, which sounds more Constitutional and democratic?
quote: Well I owe you an apology. It read as if you were being quite literal and not hypothetical. Regardless, I crossed a line and I'm sorry.
quote: We have to remember we live in a WORLD economy. If corporations were banned in America, how many companies would chose to pack up and move operations oversees? And think what that would do to our country and economy. I can't even begin to predict all the far ranging consequences such a thing would cause.
quote: Legally, you're wrong. Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons. I'm highly simplifying things by using this statement, of course. But "corporate person-hood" was decided back in the 1800's.
quote: Excuse me but, for the most part, EVERYONE has the right to earn the privilege to drive. People do have the right to get into a car and drive, provided they have met the legal terms involved in doing so. Getting a license, having insurance etc etc.The ACT of driving might not be a right, but the EARNING of the privilege certainly is.
quote: I would like you to quantify the statement that there is no "right" to form a corporation. Because, to me, this is an anti-American statement. We have the right to voluntary association, that much is certain. I can't find a single Supreme Court ruling, or legal document for that matter, that validates your assertion. Not ONE. Can you provide something tangible so that I may further understand your position?
quote: Again, legally they are. Corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. I don't know why you can't wrap your head around this concept. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. Corporate person-hood is why you can sue a corporation for damages or harm, by the way. Or do you like the idea of a CEO or group of shareholders being personally sued for every action of a person or persons in the corp? Or other legal pitfalls.
quote: I'm actually confused about which you would rather do. Banning corporations en' total, or overturning the legal interpretation of "corporate person-hood"?