Yeah, what they should have said is that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.
Corporations exist solely to conduct commerce. Any “speech” by a corporation is an act of commerce, and commerce is well within the regulatory authority of Congress.
The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim’s family takes your house in compensation.
What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership, absent any remnant of the “corporate veil”. Liability flows from your partner through the partnership and back to you. It is the corporate veil that isolates the company from the personal actions of its employees, and the employees from the business operations of the company.
The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim’s family takes your house in compensation.
That doesn’t logically follow at all.
What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership
You do not have claim on someone’s house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation.
It does. When you eliminate the “corporate veil”, liability doesn’t end at the person, but reaches back to the person’s business as well. If we eschew the traditional liability limits of a partnership by eliminating the veil (such as by commingling personal and business assets), the legal distinction ends. The partners and the business all become a single entity. Liabilities of one become liabilities of all.
You do not have claim on someone’s house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation
That is generally true, yes.
But it is only true because of the concept of the corporate veil. In saying that the victim can’t make such a claim, you are describing the veil. The only reason you do not have a claim on the partner’s house is because of the veil.
You do not get to simultaneously claim the veil is bad, and then hide behind it.
Citizens United is a Conservative nonprofit but people talking about it are usually referring to the court case.
allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power by allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and labor unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.
I am not a lawyer but as I understand the issue the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money = speech, and since there is no point at which an authority can say “You’ve spoken long enough”, there is no point at which an authority can say “You’ve spent enough.”
In public city council meetings people do get arrested if they speak considerably longer than the allowed time limit.
Just to add, there are still limits in place that prevent corporations from giving money directly to political campaigns or candidates, but there’s nothing that prevents corporations from telling people who to vote for or spending millions on ad campaigns in support of their preferred candidate.
So a given candidate’s campaign may raise only a modest sum, but they don’t need a lot of money to run ads when Megacorp A is willing to spend $1 billion on their own series of commercials to get them elected. And if that politician happens to provide favorable treatment to the corporation after they win, then it’s seen as an investment worth spending.
Can somebody please tell me what that Citizens United ruling is all about ?
( Brit in Australia )
Speech = Free: People have the right to say what they want. You can’t keep a person from talking.
Spending = Speech: People have the right to spend money about political issues. You can’t keep a person from spending.
…
Basically, Citizens United says that for-profit companies can’t be restricted from political activities. They are free to buy elections.
Oh shit right thanks. Yeah that’s simply wrong. The absolute minority controlling isn’t what voting is about, as we all know.
Get that “let them eat cake” era back and sort that whole damn mess out. What a corrupt entire system.
Yeah, what they should have said is that corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations exist solely for purposes of legally distinguishing the conduct of business from the actions of individual shareholders of that business.
Corporations exist solely to conduct commerce. Any “speech” by a corporation is an act of commerce, and commerce is well within the regulatory authority of Congress.
But that would be reasonable.
Which has, itself, not worked out so good. Shareholders and managers hiding behind the corporate veil have done irreparable harm.
The alternative is that when your co-worker goes on vacation, gets in a car wreck three states away, and the victim’s family takes your house in compensation.
What I just described is the liability structure of a partnership, absent any remnant of the “corporate veil”. Liability flows from your partner through the partnership and back to you. It is the corporate veil that isolates the company from the personal actions of its employees, and the employees from the business operations of the company.
There’s a little more nuance.
That doesn’t logically follow at all.
You do not have claim on someone’s house because of an uninsured motorist claim on a business partner on vacation.
It does. When you eliminate the “corporate veil”, liability doesn’t end at the person, but reaches back to the person’s business as well. If we eschew the traditional liability limits of a partnership by eliminating the veil (such as by commingling personal and business assets), the legal distinction ends. The partners and the business all become a single entity. Liabilities of one become liabilities of all.
That is generally true, yes.
But it is only true because of the concept of the corporate veil. In saying that the victim can’t make such a claim, you are describing the veil. The only reason you do not have a claim on the partner’s house is because of the veil.
You do not get to simultaneously claim the veil is bad, and then hide behind it.
Get send you’re totally unfamiliar with civil liability
Citizens United is a Conservative nonprofit but people talking about it are usually referring to the court case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
AU Accessibility
ƆƎℲ‾˙ʌ‾pǝʇᴉu∩‾suǝzᴉʇᴉƆ/ᴉʞᴉʍ/ƃɹo˙ɐᴉpǝdᴉʞᴉʍ˙uǝ//:sdʇʇɥ
sǝʇɐpᴉpuɐɔ lɐɔᴉʇᴉlod uǝsoɥɔ ɹᴉǝɥʇ ʇɹoddns oʇ ʎǝuoɯ ɟo sʇunoɯɐ pǝʇᴉɯᴉlun puǝds oʇ ɯǝɥʇ ƃuᴉʍollɐ ʎq ɹǝʍod lɐɔᴉʇᴉlod ǝʇɐuoᴉʇɹodoɹdsᴉp plǝᴉʍ oʇ suoᴉʇɐɹodɹoɔ ǝƃɹɐl ƃuᴉʍollɐ <
˙ǝsɐɔ ʇɹnoɔ ǝɥʇ oʇ ƃuᴉɹɹǝɟǝɹ ʎllɐnsn ǝɹɐ ʇᴉ ʇnoqɐ ƃuᴉʞlɐʇ ǝldoǝd ʇnq ʇᴉɟoɹduou ǝʌᴉʇɐʌɹǝsuoƆ ɐ sᴉ pǝʇᴉu∩ suǝzᴉʇᴉƆ
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and labor unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
I am not a lawyer but as I understand the issue the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money = speech, and since there is no point at which an authority can say “You’ve spoken long enough”, there is no point at which an authority can say “You’ve spent enough.” In public city council meetings people do get arrested if they speak considerably longer than the allowed time limit.
Just to add, there are still limits in place that prevent corporations from giving money directly to political campaigns or candidates, but there’s nothing that prevents corporations from telling people who to vote for or spending millions on ad campaigns in support of their preferred candidate.
So a given candidate’s campaign may raise only a modest sum, but they don’t need a lot of money to run ads when Megacorp A is willing to spend $1 billion on their own series of commercials to get them elected. And if that politician happens to provide favorable treatment to the corporation after they win, then it’s seen as an investment worth spending.
CU wasnt the first time SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations being human, the first was not long after the 14th amendment