The Double Edged Sword of Term Limits

[Martin Hash]

Corporations are for convenience, they are NOT people. It’s very easy to tell a person from a corporation, I get it right 100% of the time. If a person doesn’t want to perform an abortion then don’t. If a person wants to give a campaign donation then do.

[Xenophon]

Corporations are for convenience, they are NOT people. It’s very easy to tell a person from a corporation, I get it right 100% of the time. If a person doesn’t want to perform an abortion then don’t. If a person wants to give a campaign donation then do.

I agree with this. If individuals within corporations weren't cowardly, this wouldn't be an issue. The issue is that people want state support for their convictions so they don't have to take a risk, and so they lobby for stuff like "Corporations are people." On the surface, the Hobby Lobby decision looked like a win for religious liberty, and in a way it was. But there are unintended consequences for every decision like that.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It’s very easy to tell a person from a corporation, I get it right 100% of the time.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Ugh. Clubby's right. If you restrict campaign donations to a certain amount, it could be seen as a 1st amendment violation because corporations are considered legal persons.

Taking away that right from corporations would prevent business owners from running their business as they see fit. I sympathize with that point of view.

All of this crap makes my head hurt. Voting is the gayest thing you can do with your pants on.

What does ‘running a business’ have to do with political donations? Unless we’re enshrining political payoffs (corruption) as a ‘fundamental right’?

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Corporations don’t have personhood. They don’t perform or obey any of the functions of personhood, other than to consume and procreate.

The idea is ridiculous.

EDIT: In order for the corporation (group of individuals) to be considered a single ‘person’, all of its members would have to lose their individual personhood. Ie: the Borg.

[Xenophon]

What does ‘running a business’ have to do with political donations? Unless we’re enshrining political payoffs (corruption) as a ‘fundamental right’?

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Corporations don’t have personhood. They don’t perform or obey any of the functions of personhood, other than to consume and procreate.

The idea is ridiculous.

EDIT: In order for the corporation (group of individuals) to be considered a single ‘person’, all of its members would have to lose their individual personhood. Ie: the Borg.

I don't disagree with you, but this is the framework we're operating under, currently. Anyone with a brain can recognize that Wal-Mart isn't a person, because I can't go hit up Wal-Mart for a no-interest loan to fix my car.

[The Conservative]

Ugh. Clubby's right. If you restrict campaign donations to a certain amount, it could be seen as a 1st amendment violation because corporations are considered legal persons.

Taking away that right from corporations would prevent business owners from running their business as they see fit. I sympathize with that point of view.

All of this crap makes my head hurt. Voting is the gayest thing you can do with your pants on.

They were restricted in the past, we would be going back to how it was.

So independent dark money. Same as it ever was. You play accounting games with people that have a message and big bank balances, the message is going to get out. Why drive this shit underground? Have it in your face and deal with it head on. Dirty dick wants the fantasy of sullying an untouched virgin but there aren't any they are all whores at least this way I know who is paying.

Because as open as things are now, if we push back (and we should) against a minority of moneybags making the decisions for the politicians we vote for, we should have the ability to stand on equal ground. A person who donates a million dollars has the same voting power as someone who donates one.

[Ph64]

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Corporations don’t have personhood. They don’t perform or obey any of the functions of personhood, other than to consume and procreate.

The idea is ridiculous.

EDIT: In order for the corporation (group of individuals) to be considered a single ‘person’, all of its members would have to lose their individual personhood. Ie: the Borg.

I don't disagree with you, but this is the framework we're operating under, currently. Anyone with a brain can recognize that Wal-Mart isn't a person, because I can't go hit up Wal-Mart for a no-interest loan to fix my car.

It's always been a weird one for me, somehow the argument for corporate "personhood" was that corporations can own property and have free speech, therefore they are "persons" under the law.

Seems back asswords to me, like saying people have hearts, and cows have hearts, therefore cows are people - despite obviously not being true.

Then again we now "believe" that women can have penises and men can menstruate, you can change genders 29 times a day - and there's 397 different genders so you can go a week never repeating one, but God forbid anyone "misgender" or "dead name" you - they should be arrested!

[TheOneX]

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Conceptually that wouldn't be difficult. You create an amendment that codifies what rights corporations do and do not have. The difficulty would be getting the political support to make it happen.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Conceptually that wouldn't be difficult. You create an amendment that codifies what rights corporations do and do not have. The difficulty would be getting the political support to make it happen.

All articles and amendments of the Constitution apply only to individual humans.


You’re welcome.

[TheOneX]

Because if you take away the corporation's first amendment rights, not only would they not be able to donate to political parties over a certain amount, but they could also get in trouble for running their business in a certain way, i.e. Catholic hospital not performing abortions.

They'd have to somehow find a way to remove personhood from corporations without damaging the 1st amendment.

Conceptually that wouldn't be difficult. You create an amendment that codifies what rights corporations do and do not have. The difficulty would be getting the political support to make it happen.

All articles and amendments of the Constitution apply only to individual humans.


You’re welcome.

Corporations should have rights as, the separation of business and state is just as important as the separation of church and state. We just need to set in stone that those rights are different than the rights of individual humans, and codify what those rights are. Right now because we do not make that distinction we are forced to apply the same rights of individual humans to corporations.