The Separation of Corporation and State

[Daemon Sophic]

The owners of the corporation are the ones ultimately controlling its actions, even if thru electred directors & hired managers.
If the employees want to be in charge, then they should buy stock, otherwise their relationship is that of providing labor for compensation.
Note: I also favor unions & any other group being able to lobby government.

Grand. However, the power (money) of a corporation owner vastly outstrips the power of any and all of the employees. This effectively gives that CEO and/or the board members many many votes per person in any and all elections both in their own home district (where....as a real human being they might even be registered to vote) and across the country. And that is distinctly anti-democratic.

That is merely metaphorical. Corporations are neither married nor single, don't adopt children, & don't enter voting booths.

Yes, but real people cannot do many things that corps do. The whole arguement is moot.

I hear that a lot, but without money to buy a venue, speech is greatly curtailed. So money is entangled with speech.
Why else are political parties amassing great war chests? They buy ads to get their message across to the public.

This is the very heart of the problem. Politicians spending 3/4 of their time drumming up funds so as to keep their jobs, rather than working for the people's good. Plus the CEOs, with their consolidated funding are fantastically ahead of the corrupted curve in their ability to buy the speech and votes of the susceptible politicians (that includes all of the politicians, since they can consider politics to be a viable money-making career).

Just what do you think I'm advocating?

sorry. That comment was toward most of the posters, not you.

Let's just say that I'm not in favor of the high level of regulation you are.
I believe it would lead to even greater censorship, corruption & poor representation.

The only regulation that I would ask for is that the CEO has one human vote.....as do each and every one of his 20,000 employees. Which is to say that I would REALLY like our "democracy" to become a democracy.

or should I just hand my children over to the factory owners now, and save time. Remember, our thousands of years of known human history is merely a string of nations utilizing unregulated capitalism. Each and every one of them has inevitably yielded royalty/aristocrats and serfs. No exceptions.
Communism and democracy are the rarely tried new kids on the block. Communism and the first try at democracy both crashed due to the greed of the wealthy few overwhelming the politicians, and reestablishing the aristocracy (i.e. they crumbled into self-destructive plutocracies). And now (for the last 30+ years) the U.S.A. is following down that path.

Question: can we take it back......or should the wise just emigrate now, to one of the younger and more viable democracies?

 

[Shermana]

Grand. However, the power (money) of a corporation owner vastly outstrips the power of any and all of the employees.

That's like saying that the Owner of the House vastly outstrips the power of the gardener and the maid. They're there to do a job that they're paid to do at an agreement they agreed at, what does it matter from there? You could argue that the maid and the gardener perform a function which keeps the value of the house stable, if not increases it, little different than the "Added labor value" which the worker provides.

 

[Revoltingest]

Grand. However, the power (money) of a corporation owner vastly outstrips the power of any and all of the employees. This effectively gives that CEO and/or the board members many many votes per person in any and all elections both in their own home district (where....as a real human being they might even be registered to vote) and across the country. And that is distinctly anti-democratic.

I take no position on who has or should have more power. I don't know.

Yes, but real people cannot do many things that corps do. The whole arguement is moot.

Yet here we are discussing it.

This is the very heart of the problem. Politicians spending 3/4 of their time drumming up funds so as to keep their jobs, rather than working for the people's good. Plus the CEOs, with their consolidated funding are fantastically ahead of the corrupted curve in their ability to buy the speech and votes of the susceptible politicians (that includes all of the politicians, since they can consider politics to be a viable money-making career).

I don't argue that.

The only regulation that I would ask for is that the CEO has one human vote.....as do each and every one of his 20,000 employees. Which is to say that I would REALLY like our "democracy" to become a democracy.

As I understand you, this is already the case.

or should I just hand my children over to the factory owners now, and save time. Remember, our thousands of years of known human history is merely a string of nations utilizing unregulated capitalism. Each and every one of them has inevitably yielded royalty/aristocrats and serfs. No exceptions.
Communism and democracy are the rarely tried new kids on the block. Communism and the first try at democracy both crashed due to the greed of the wealthy few overwhelming the politicians, and reestablishing the aristocracy (i.e. they crumbled into self-destructive plutocracies). And now (for the last 30+ years) the U.S.A. is following down that path.

This is too diffuse to address.

Question: can we take it back......or should the wise just emigrate now, to one of the younger and more viable democracies?

It's your call.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think corporations should be able to provide political money in any form.

It's the right of the people to influence politics. A corporation is just a collection of assets of people; it should be able to carry out actions that serve its purpose, like signing contracts and such, but the ability to influence politics should stay with the people.

I don't think executives should be able to use other people's money (shareholder money), to change the political direction of the country. A significant part of a corporation's shares are usually owned by institutions. Banks, investment funds, etc. The people that own corporations through index funds and mutual funds are excluded from the voting process of selecting the leaders of their corporations, and therefore a vast amount of political power is being wielded by only a few.

Should all special interest groups with the same effect on government be similarly separated?

501c3 organizations (the broad non-profit category), are barred from direct political activity, but they can lobby a little. Private Foundations cannot. Other 501(c) organizations have other levels of allowed political activity. So there's precedence for limiting political activity depending on what type of organization one is.

It think certain types of non-profit organizations, like political action committees, should be able to lobby if it's their sole reason for existence (like a bunch of people basically getting together, or contributing money to, a group that they share a political belief with). And that this money should only be allowed to come from individuals.

So if a rich oil executive wants to influence politics to assist his industry, he should be able to spend his own money to do so. But I don't think he should be able to spend other peoples money to do so.

 

[work in progress]

Simple. All those Supreme Court justices are appointed by one or the other of our two political parties. Go to opensecrets.org and look at the lists of the top soft money sources for the two parties. It's no mystery why our representative democracy is in a shambles - the judiciary has no intellectual independence at all from the corrupt political system.

Here's another important source to understand the progression of corporate personhood, and the demise of democracy in America -- ReclaimDemocracy.org It didn't all just start with Citizen's United! They have been slowly chipping away at the intention of the Founding Fathers -- too prevent a multinational corporate monstrosity such as England had with the East India Company, from taking control of government policy and putting citizens into a state of indentured servitude:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
​

Can you imagine the squawking from corporate mouthpieces if a modern day political movement started demanding that the original corporate controls be reinstated? My guess is that this is a big part of the reason why they want to try to kill movements like Occupy Wall Street!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No...that's just histrionics & rhetoric from protesters & the media.

Reading more about the case, it doesn't seem to me like it is.

That is one aspect of being a "person", one which I favor because corporations are a group of people coming together with common
interests & goals. Consider things corporations cannot do, eg, marry, adopt children, make wills, vote for prez/gov/senator/etc.
These things are done solely by the persons who own the corporation. But some things pass thru from the individual to the group,
eg, speaking with one voice about corporate matters.

So a corporation is a "person" for the purposes of the First Amendment. Based on what I've been able to find, it's also a "person" for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. So why is it such a stretch to say that it's a "person" for the purposes of the Constitution as a whole?

Because those things are something a person could do. When there is talk of corporations as a person, it is in a limited sense.

But "a person can do this" does not necessarily imply "non-person entities cannot do this". I see no reason to define corporations as people under the law, even in a limited sense, when it would be just as easy to define a corporation as a non-person entity with the legal authority to enter into agreements.

I know of no law that says a party to an agreement must be a person, and even if there is one, it'd be a straightforward enough matter to change. It'd certainly have less complex ramifications than deeming corporations to be people, "limited people" or other variations on this theme.

That is utterly bonkers.

But it's the logical implication of corporate personhood. I think this shows that the whole idea that corporations are people is what's bonkers.

 

[Revoltingest]

So a corporation is a "person" for the purposes of the First Amendment. Based on what I've been able to find, it's also a "person" for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. So why is it such a stretch to say that it's a "person" for the purposes of the Constitution as a whole?

I'd say it's a person where it makes sense, & not a person where it wouldn't make sense. Marriage is a perfect example of excluding corporations.

But "a person can do this" does not necessarily imply "non-person entities cannot do this". I see no reason to define corporations as people under the law, even in a limited sense, when it would be just as easy to define a corporation as a non-person entity with the legal authority to enter into agreements.

I can see how the law evolved that way. It's perhaps simpler to view corporations has hybrid persons/non-persons (with the applicable constitutional law
governing in areas of personhood), than to create a new body of constitutional law. It seems analogous to commonality of design & parts in machinery.

I know of no law that says a party to an agreement must be a person, and even if there is one, it'd be a straightforward enough matter to change. It'd certainly have less complex ramifications than deeming corporations to be people, "limited people" or other variations on this theme.

I don't see a reason to change the long standing legal tradition in a major way. If specific changes are in order, then only those need be addressed,
rather than endure tumult of sweeping unintended consequences of overturning the entire apple cart.

But it's the logical implication of corporate personhood. I think this shows that the whole idea that corporations are people is what's bonkers.

It's not logical, since a corporation is clearly not identical to a person in the sense of a human being. By comparison, note that under US law, atheism
is considered a religion, but it also isn't a religion. One must understand that some concepts are hybridized.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

That's like saying that the Owner of the House vastly outstrips the power of the gardener and the maid. They're there to do a job that they're paid to do at an agreement they agreed at, what does it matter from there? You could argue that the maid and the gardener perform a function which keeps the value of the house stable, if not increases it, little different than the "Added labor value" which the worker provides.

You are not seeing the forest....just a couple of trees. Either that or you have no problem with the US being a massive serfdom.
I have no problem with the owner being wealthier than the staff. Its the "owner" aspect that troubles me, and troubles most of the people out on the streets protesting the consolidation of money and power into the extremely few.
This is a democratic country: not a house. Every single last human has an equal number of votes. Every single person has an equal right to speak.
or at least that is what the constitution says.

But the reality is that the corrupt courts have ordered that "money IS speech", and the nature of lobbyists and politicians dictates that having more money grants you more votes.



PS - if you are idealistically still thinking that the will of the people will correct any gross imbalances in the voting booth. Then realize that there are only 5 old, very rich, and very wealthy men who control every piece of TV news that most of the voters watch (and believe) every single night.
These millions of voters will believe in ghosts or invading aliens if you tell them to. They will believe the president was born in Kenya, and that democrats have raised the debt more than republicans if you tell them to. Or that cutting taxes on the rich will create more jobs for them, and that oil companies need 10s of billions of tax dollars per year for reasearch and development, and that solar power is a bust.
So now how do you think those millions and millions of people will vote?

 

[McBell]

Separation of church and State has done little good at keeping the faithful out of our government. I would suggest something more drastic (and more broad - not all businesses are corporations, and not all corporations are for-profit).

Separation of Church and State was never designed or expected to keep people of faith out of the government.
It was to designed to keep religious based policies and policies that favour religion out of the state.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If the employees want to be in charge, then they should buy stock, otherwise their relationship is that of providing labor for compensation.

Emphasis added. Here's where this logic leads: if you're rich, you can buy lots of stock. If you're poor, you can't. If you're a corporation, you have lots of money to influence politicians. Unless you're an uber-rich individual, you don't. Therefore, political decisions are made by the wealthy, not the majority. This is called plutocracy, not democracy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have corporations, or that their ownership shouldn't be determined by people buying stock. I'm saying a group's influence on government should be determined by its people power, not its money power. A democracy is supposed to be "one man, one vote" not "one dollar, one vote". People forget how significant that statement is. Each one of us should literally have as much power in politics as Donald Trump, or Bill Gates. The fact that this is a laughable idea shows how much democratic reform we need.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm still flabbergasted every time someone equates the bank bailout to the stimulus, as Revoltingest did on page #1.

The stimulus was favored by the majority of Americans.

The bank bailout was opposed by the majority of Americans.

The stimulus money was spent on tax cuts for most people, loans to students, employment training, education, health and human services, highway construction, fiscal assistance so states could pay their teachers, police, and firefighters, and so on. In other words, the money was spent on the people. Not just a particular commercial interest (banks).

To compare the stimulus to the bank bailout and say they were both examples of corporations hijacking our system to the detriment of the democratic majority is just delusional.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still flabbergasted every time someone equates the bank bailout to the stimulus, as Revoltingest did on page #1.

I'm still flabbergasted every time someone reads something which isn't there into my posts. I don't equate them, but I listed them together
because of similarities I see. Here is the quote to which I presume you refer.
"Unfortunately, it appears that despite all the voters' complaining about corporate favoritism, they keep supporting stimulus & bail-outs."
Does that help?

The stimulus was favored by the majority of Americans.
The bank bailout was opposed by the majority of Americans.

I heard & still here a lot of support for bail-outs, whether it was a majority or not.

The stimulus money was spent on tax cuts for most people, loans to students, employment training, education, health and human services, highway construction, fiscal assistance so states could pay their teachers, police, and firefighters, and so on. In other words, the money was spent on the people. Not just a particular commercial interest (banks).

Tax cuts? I must've missed that.
Have link? (The one above doesn't seem to apply to how stimulus money was spent.)

To compare the stimulus to the bank bailout and say they were both examples of corporations hijacking our system to the detriment of the democratic majority is just delusional.

Solyndra & other companies receiving stimulus money are politically well connected corporations. Certainly, the bail-outs are more targeted towards a favored
few, & much of the stimulus went to other entities, but the smell of corporate corruption still lurks. If I'm not "just delusional", then how much worse am I?
Anyway, would say that this smacks of corruption.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278732/solyndra-mess-gets-messier-andrew-stiles
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-investigations
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/18/346148/herman-cain-stimulus-opponent/

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Corporations are people, and we are the people.

What corporation do you have any say about.

Most Corporations are super national and uncontrolled in most senses. not even their share holders have any identifiable control. a vast majority of their shares are controlled by other conglomerates or other financial entities. what remains is totally diluted.

Corporations are certainly not people.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Should all special interest groups with the same effect on government be similarly separated?

Most certainly.

Government is for the benefit of the people, not minorities what ever their size.