bearsandgiants;842300492 said:

---

The SCOTUS decision that established "corporate personhood" is far worse, in my opinion. And in light of that, I would really appreciate if a prosecutor would be so bold as to pursue criminal charges in kind. GM, for example, should be on trial for 17 murders right now. And if found guilty, they should be put in prison (ie, out of business) for life. If you're going to get the same benefits as a person, you have to play by the same rules.

---

Apparently, you and others in this thread are not aware that corporations can be and are criminally charged. Most recently (within two weeks), Toyota was criminally charged for the cover up of the acceleration issues. I have no doubt GM will be similarly charged (or negotiate a plea like Toyota did).

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/March/14-ag-286.html

The DOJ has published guidelines http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/documents/reports/1999/charging-corps.PDF

Note that employees, officers and directors who engaged in criminal wrongdoing can also be charged as individuals.

BearGoggles;842300518 said:

---

Note that employees, officers and directors who engaged in criminal wrongdoing can also be charged as individuals.

---

With the caveat that they still have to be proven guilty of committing a criminal act; merely sitting on the board is not (and should not be) enough to warrant charges, regardless of how much some here would like for those selfish evil 1%ers to be punished.

"According to a 1977 Mother Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw in the Pinto gas tank, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of repairs (Ford estimated the cost to be $11 per car per year) against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts . The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo."[Wikipedia] Ford chose to simply pay off the lawsuits rather than redesign.

http://www.southerninjurylawyer.com/media/2009/05/ford-memo.pdf

pingpong2;842300190 said:

---

...your beef is with the SCOTUS in 1886 when they ruled 14A applied to corporations. If anything, later courts have been upholding the constitution by reaffirming that ruling.

---

Yeah they have been "upholding the Constitution" the same way later courts upheld Plessy v Ferguson until 1954. Upholding a bad ruling is not the same as "upholding the Constitution".

beelzebear;842300487 said:

---

I'd argue that while the founders were rich, the power, scale and immense weight of corporations today would be a defining difference.

---

Corporations no longer must. That is a crucial change that our Founders did not allow. We do.

pingpong2;842300502 said:

---

Again, how would you determine who on the board is culpable? Is culpability solely based on being on the board at the time of the incident? If it's something that the board wasn't even aware of because it got swallowed somewhere below them, are they still personally liable? If it's something that happened in the engineering arm, does it make sense for the board to be liable rather than the executives in that division? If it never made it past the desk of a single VP who brushed it under the rug, does it make sense for all the other executives in that division to be liable?

Keep in mind that a Board's duties are to hire the CEO or GM and provide guidance for the general direction and strategy of the business. They're not supposed to micro-manage and meddle in your general day-to-day stuff. With that in mind how can you ascertain that the board was negligent in GM not issuing a recall?

---

You are making the case that corporations should not have the same rights as people, because they aren't and cannot be treated like people. Yet our Court allows them those rights, but imposes none of the responsibilities.

HaasBear04;842300478 said:

---

If money is indeed speech, then this ruling should have been a 9-0 decision. Ginsburg, Kagan et al need to get with the program.

---

Which indicates that this is a partisan issue. The 5 are defending their own - not the Constitution.

Go!Bears;842300575 said:

---

Which indicates that this is a partisan issue. The 5 are defending their own - not the Constitution.

---

No. It indicates that modern liberals love free speech, unless they disagree with it, in which case they will restrict it.

The irony is that Justice Brennan - perhaps the most liberal supreme court justice of the past century (if not ever) -- wrote the Buckley opinion which held that most campaign expenditures limits were unconstitutional. This was the case that essentially held that campaign donations are a form of speech. Justice Brennan was (rightly IMO) pretty much an absolutist when it came to first amendment issues. It used to be that was the prevalent view in liberal/academic circles. It is sad that is no longer the case.

And with regard to the "defending their own" argument, you should take note that in the last election cycle, President Obama raise more money than Romney. Much of the presidents funds came from large corporations and wealthy individuals (not to mention labor unions). Corporate money flows to both parties.

BearGoggles;842300628 said:

---

No. It indicates that modern liberals love free speech, unless they disagree with it, in which case they will restrict it.

---

Obviously you are a little confused about the liberal position. Liberals aren't saying only George Soros can spend money, liberals are saying all money should be limited as it relates to political campaigns.

My personal opinion is that if money is unlimited in political campaigns than our democracy is likely to be undone by wealthy interests. I'm not very concerned with the views of the founding fathers on the subject for a few reasons:
1 - During the time of the founders voting was often limited to white men who owned property. Clearly society has shifted since that time.
2 - Corporations exist at a different level today then they did back then.
3 - Concentrations of wealth take a different shape today then they did prior to the industrial revolution.
4 - The founders gave us a mechanism to adjust the constitution to resolve issues like these as we see fit. It's called the constitutional amendment.

We need a constitutional amendment that limits the power of corporations and wealth to influence our elections. Quite literally, our democracy is at stake, regardless of the latest 5-4 outcome from the Supreme Court.

Until such time that we get a favorable constitional amendment I am in agreement with the others that when corporations cause people to die the people in charge should be charged for murder just like a local gangbanger would. The buck stops with the CEO - and so would the murder charge. Others too, if the evidence warrants it.

dajo9;842300648 said:

---

Obviously you are a little confused about the liberal position. Liberals aren't saying only George Soros can spend money, liberals are saying all money should be limited as it relates to political campaigns.

My personal opinion is that if money is unlimited in political campaigns than our democracy is likely to be undone by wealthy interests. I'm not very concerned with the views of the founding fathers on the subject for a few reasons:
1 - During the time of the founders voting was often limited to white men who owned property. Clearly society has shifted since that time.
2 - Corporations exist at a different level today then they did back then.
3 - Concentrations of wealth take a different shape today then they did prior to the industrial revolution.
4 - The founders gave us a mechanism to adjust the constitution to resolve issues like these as we see fit. It's called the constitutional amendment.

We need a constitutional amendment that limits the power of corporations and wealth to influence our elections. Quite literally, our democracy is at stake, regardless of the latest 5-4 outcome from the Supreme Court.

Until such time that we get a favorable constitional amendment I am in agreement with the others that when corporations cause people to die the people in charge should be charged for murder just like a local gangbanger would. The buck stops with the CEO - and so would the murder charge. Others too, if the evidence warrants it.

---

Advocating for a constitutional amendment consistent with your views is a perfectly reasonable approach/opinion (though I disagree). However, others in this thread have been criticizing the supreme court for its interpretation of the First Amendment and its application to corporations (which is consistent with the First Amendment and prior case law), rather than making the honest argument that they want the First Amendment changed. I commend you for being intellectually honest.

Your analogy of corporate directors to gangbangers committing a crime is misplaced. To support criminal culpability, you generally need to prove criminal intent or reckless disregard (i.e., the gang banger who pulls the trigger). A corporate executive who truly has no knowledge of a misdeed is not guilty. The correct analogy is to a parent who owns a car that is driven by a drunk teenager who kills someone. The teenager who drove the car is criminally liable, the parents (who supplied the car, gas, insurance, whatever) generally are not (unless they knew the teenager would drive drunk).

One question I would ask you to consider. If the first amendment were modified as you suggest and "monied" interests had less (if any) influence, would that be tilting the scales in favor of the takers (rather than the makers). There is just as much risk from non-producers having undue influence as the wealthy. As a capitalist, I view the pursuit of profits (and Adam's Smith's invisible hand guided by individual's self interest) as having positive effects (not all positive) that should be represented in a democracy. The First Amendment, as currently drafted, gives all interests the opportunity to heard (including campaign spending). President Obama's massive fundraising from "regular people" and unions evidences the fact that you don't have to be rich to have influence.

bearsandgiants;842300492 said:

---

The SCOTUS decision that established "corporate personhood" is far worse, in my opinion. And in light of that, I would really appreciate if a prosecutor would be so bold as to pursue criminal charges in kind. GM, for example, should be on trial for 17 murders right now. And if found guilty, they should be put in prison (ie, out of business) for life. If you're going to get the same benefits as a person, you have to play by the same rules.

---

I am not a prosecutor, but most people (or at least me) will argue this should happen more. Just read the last several Michael Lewis' books and tell me why the financial institutions and their executive were not criminally charged? Why was Jaime Diamond not criminally charged recently (trying to show this a bipartisan problem)?

BTW, long before the SCOTUS decision, courts were finding corporations were a "person" if you well. Its something we inherited from our British cousins along with most of their legal system.

pingpong2;842300502 said:

---

Again, how would you determine who on the board is culpable? Is culpability solely based on being on the board at the time of the incident? If it's something that the board wasn't even aware of because it got swallowed somewhere below them, are they still personally liable? If it's something that happened in the engineering arm, does it make sense for the board to be liable rather than the executives in that division? If it never made it past the desk of a single VP who brushed it under the rug, does it make sense for all the other executives in that division to be liable?

Keep in mind that a Board's duties are to hire the CEO or GM and provide guidance for the general direction and strategy of the business. They're not supposed to micro-manage and meddle in your general day-to-day stuff. With that in mind how can you ascertain that the board was negligent in GM not issuing a recall?

---

are agents for the corporation, and the corporation therefore can be held criminally responsible. You can throw the individuals in jail, and you can arguably fine the corporation out of existence (though I don't think civil plaintiff attorneys would like that result).

bearister;842300163 said:

---

---

George Soros outspends both those guys by a long shot. You guys love to skew things your way. How about the billionaire who is contributing 50 million to liberal campaigns and raising 50 more for making climate change an issue? You progressives make me puke.

bearister;842300555 said:

---

"According to a 1977 Mother Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw in the Pinto gas tank, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of repairs (Ford estimated the cost to be $11 per car per year) against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts . The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo."[Wikipedia] Ford chose to simply pay off the lawsuits rather than redesign.

http://www.southerninjurylawyer.com/media/2009/05/ford-memo.pdf

---

Every thing I need to know about you is you use Mother Jones as a credible source.

BearGoggles;842300628 said:

---

No. It indicates that modern liberals love free speech, unless they disagree with it, in which case they will restrict it.

---

Explain to me how the 5 Republican appointees voting yes and the 4 Democrats voting no indicates that.

BearGoggles;842300673 said:

---

If..."monied" interests had less (if any) influence, would that be tilting the scales in favor of the takers (rather than the makers). There is just as much risk from non-producers having undue influence as the wealthy.

---

So, one person, one vote is undue influence if you are a "taker". As if the "makers" do not take. You must have loved Romney.

HaasBear04;842300478 said:

---

If money is indeed speech, then this ruling should have been a 9-0 decision. Ginsburg, Kagan et al need to get with the program.

---

that some of the most liberal (progressive?) courts and justices were the ones who created the decisions on which this most recent decision is based.

As for the corporations are not people argument, its nice to see that people on this board know more than judges who made these decisions over the last several hundred years. To steal from Wikipedia, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. To steal from Teddy Roosevelt (a guy who really hated corporate trusts), without these legal protections, there is no economy as people and capital would not accept risks that made our economy (he was talking in the context of an economy based on industrialization, but I think the point has application to before his time and after). Corporations have been treated as persons since there development over 300 years ago, and for many different reasons. This is settled law.

That said, it will be interesting to see how the court rules on the Hobby Lobby case, as Hobby Lobby's shareholders are asking the court to in essence ignore the corporate shell and corporate personhood, at least in closely held corporations, and say the shareholders are really the employer for purposes of Obamacare (I appreciate the arguments are somewhat more complex).

Go!Bears;842300568 said:

---

Yeah they have been "upholding the Constitution" the same way later courts upheld Plessy v Ferguson until 1954. Upholding a bad ruling is not the same as "upholding the Constitution".

---

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47855.html

Go!Bears;842300711 said:

---

Explain to me how the 5 Republican appointees voting yes and the 4 Democrats voting no indicates that.

---

Because the 4 liberals voting "no" took a position that is inconstant with the previously deeply ingrained liberal commitment to the First Amendment - think the ACLU supporting the Nazi's right to protest in Skokie, flag burning, the overturning of obscenity laws, or any of the other First Amendment jurisprudence from 1900-1995 (most of which was driven by liberal Free Speech absolutists like Justices Brennan, Douglas and Marshall) .

The fact that they voted "no" despite this long history supports my contention that modern liberals support free speech as long as you agree with them. It is liberals - not conservative republicans - that seek to silence opposing viewpoints either by shouting them down or preventing opposing speech (see the current efforts to silence so called "climate deniers" or the growth of "hate speech" codes that protect people's feelings). There are even people on the left defending the UC Santa Barbara protester who recently assaulted pro-life demonstrators who were in the school's "free speech zone".

People who truly support free speech need to tolerate speech they disagree with or find reprehensible.

Go!Bears;842300716 said:

---

So, one person, one vote is undue influence if you are a "taker". As if the "makers" do not take. You must have loved Romney.

---

Are you dense or just so poor at formulating thoughts that you resort to meaningless clichs like "one person one vote"? Where did I say anything suggesting I oppose one person one vote?

In fact, my general point was that a taker and a maker should compete on equal footing - each one gets a "vote" and each gets to exercise their free speech in support of their views.

I'd charge those 5 justices with treason. This and Citizens United are the evidence.

BearGoggles;842300673 said:

---

Advocating for a constitutional amendment consistent with your views is a perfectly reasonable approach/opinion (though I disagree). However, others in this thread have been criticizing the supreme court for its interpretation of the First Amendment and its application to corporations (which is consistent with the First Amendment and prior case law), rather than making the honest argument that they want the First Amendment changed. I commend you for being intellectually honest.

---

Actually I disagree with you that the 1st Amendment needs to be re-written. I agree with the others. But since conservatives insist on pushing the asinine view that money is speech I figure an amendment would put the nail in that coffin.

BearGoggles;842300673 said:

---

Your analogy of corporate directors to gangbangers committing a crime is misplaced. To support criminal culpability, you generally need to prove criminal intent or reckless disregard (i.e., the gang banger who pulls the trigger). A corporate executive who truly has no knowledge of a misdeed is not guilty. The correct analogy is to a parent who owns a car that is driven by a drunk teenager who kills someone. The teenager who drove the car is criminally liable, the parents (who supplied the car, gas, insurance, whatever) generally are not (unless they knew the teenager would drive drunk).

---

You have a double standard here in favor of corporations. The CEO is in charge. If a corporation has the intent than the head of the corporation gets an orange suit. It's only fair. With great rights comes great responsibility.

BearGoggles;842300673 said:

---

One question I would ask you to consider. If the first amendment were modified as you suggest and "monied" interests had less (if any) influence, would that be tilting the scales in favor of the takers (rather than the makers). There is just as much risk from non-producers having undue influence as the wealthy. As a capitalist, I view the pursuit of profits (and Adam's Smith's invisible hand guided by individual's self interest) as having positive effects (not all positive) that should be represented in a democracy. The First Amendment, as currently drafted, gives all interests the opportunity to heard (including campaign spending). President Obama's massive fundraising from "regular people" and unions evidences the fact that you don't have to be rich to have influence.

---

One person one vote without a few wealthy people being able to overwhelm the discourse through money so all people can be heard. Yes, even so that thousands of $20 contributions can be heard. I'm a capitalist too, btw. A low-level 1% even. But democracy comes first. It's good for business too.

wifeisafurd;842300682 said:

---

I am not a prosecutor, but most people (or at least me) will argue this should happen more. Just read the last several Michael Lewis' books and tell me why the financial institutions and their executive were not criminally charged? Why was Jaime Diamond not criminally charged recently (trying to show this a bipartisan problem)?

---

Your question highlights the problem here. More corporations and wealthy people are not prosecuted because the money they are able to wield in our political campaigns gives them undue power and influence. It is why campaign finance reform is a necessity to preserve our democracy. The conservative justices are pushing us to a plutocracy.

BearGoggles;842300732 said:

---

Are you dense or just so poor at formulating thoughts that you resort to meaningless clichs like "one person one vote"? Where did I say anything suggesting I oppose one person one vote?

In fact, my general point was that a taker and a maker should compete on equal footing - each one gets a "vote" and each gets to exercise their free speech in support of their views.

---

Are you dense or something? You keep talking about the content of speech as if that is the issue and then turn around here and talk about everybody getting to exercise free speech equally.

There is nothing equal about free speech when a billionaire gets to spend unlimited funds in comparison to a regular stiff. The liberal side is about preventing an overwhelming quantity of speech from one side (either side of the political spectrum) to inundate the electoral process. It's about preserving the marketplace of ideas by making sure their is room for all voices to be heard. Stop talking about content of speech. The whole dispute is about quantity. Literally every argument you've made is a strawman.

BearGoggles;842300731
People who truly support free speech need to tolerate speech they disagree with or find reprehensible.[/QUOTE said:

---

you think money is speech. Only reason anyone thinks that is they have drunk the koolaid served by the conservative gang of five.

wifeisafurd;842300718 said:

---

As for the corporations are not people argument, its nice to see that people on this board know more than judges who made these decisions over the last several hundred years.

---

You fall into an old trap. The Supreme Court is not final because it is right. It is right because it is final. How many times has this court overturned the jurisprudence of previous courts? They ignore it when they want and then you hide behind it when convenient. The court has been wrong before (Dred Scott, Plessy, Heller) they are wrong now.

BearGoggles;842300732 said:

---

Are you dense or just so poor at formulating thoughts that you resort to meaningless clichs like "one person one vote"? Where did I say anything suggesting I oppose one person one vote?

In fact, my general point was that a taker and a maker should compete on equal footing - each one gets a "vote" and each gets to exercise their free speech in support of their views.

---

What other "undue influence" do poor people have?

Go!Bears;842300782 said:

---

You fall into an old trap. The Supreme Court is not final because it is right. It is right because it is final. How many times has this court overturned the jurisprudence of previous courts? They ignore it when they want and then you hide behind it when convenient. The court has been wrong before (Dred Scott, Plessy, Heller) they are wrong now.

---

Its a myriad of English and American courts. Every state court system has recognized corporate personhood, at all levels. Its settled law. iIts like saying let's eliminate due process, because all these courts are wrong.

If I misunderstood your post and are talking about political contributions, than SCOTUS court overturn prior precedence (we don't call it jurisprudence), but its unlikely once the court has several decisions in an area. For example, people want to the court to eliminate the right of privacy, Miranda rights, or other SCOTUS made doctrines. Not gonna happen any time soon.

Look the rich are treated differently in this society and a lot of that is access to power. Here's something I learned while at Cal: societal institutions are there to maintain the power and structure of those in charge. It's a pretty much universal concept.

So we get the SCOTUS doing the dirty work now, or stuff like this: Du Pont heir convicted of raping daughter spared prison Yeah, that's right he raped his 3 y.o. and get zero time because the judge didn't think he'd fair well.

Here's is what I learned at Cal - the Supreme court is there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The minority could be the rich - in fact, in this case, it is. That is what the job is. But this was a much simpler case - the individual was not allowed to make a donation to an elected official - even a donation that was limited by a donation amount. This law eliminated an individuals right to give money to a candidate - not unlimited money, but the same money every other individual could give to the same candidate.

Once again, how is that OK? He is rich so he should not be able to give money to a candidate?

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a country ruled by laws. Perhaps the rich built the laws (the founding fathers were all rich, for the most part) but that is the way it is.

By the way, the supreme court did not rule that the DuPont heir would get no jail time. The judge was a democratic appointee who did rule that, however.

I use the term in its second meaning

jurisprudence (ˌdʒʊərɪsˈpruːdəns) n
1. (Law) the science or philosophy of law
2. (Law) a system or body of law

I am referring to the body of law surrounding the court's treatment of corporations. That treatment was a choice. Given that important aspects of that choice (Santa Clara) were made more than a century ago, you cannot argue (as has been done here in this thread) that those choices were made by a liberal US Supreme Court.

My argument is that sometimes the Court is wrong. This is a political, not legal issue and should be left to the political branches of our government, which have decided it. This activist court has, by the smallest possible margin, inserted itself where it does not belong. In doing so, they have stripped the public of its ability to defend our political system from corruption by the wealthy. They have hastened the development of oligarchy. We can only hope they have also hastened a political backlash.

I blame Buh.:p

Oski87;842300886 said:

---

But this was a much simpler case - the individual was not allowed to make a donation to an elected official - even a donation that was limited by a donation amount. This law eliminated an individuals right to give money to a candidate - not unlimited money, but the same money every other individual could give to the same candidate.

---

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. There used to be limits on how much a single individual could contribute to ALL candidates in a given election cycle. The Supreme Court just struck those down. So while contributions to an individual campaign are still limited, wealthy donors can now write checks to as many campaigns as they want.

It may well be that this was logically and legally consistent based on prior court rulings. I can see the reasoning behind that, if we do indeed accept the basic principle that money=speech. The larger question is whether or not this will actually be good for our political system.

I have to say that I have a hard time seeing how it will be. This basically allows extremely wealthy individuals to have influence over a much larger group of politicians; they can "buy" more of them. Essentially it consolidates more power among a select few. Is that really the vision the Founding Fathers had for our country? Yes, I realize that they were all wealthy landowners, but for the time what they were doing was EXPANDING power to a larger group of people, not consolidating more at the top.

Oski87;842300886 said:

---

Here's is what I learned at Cal - the Supreme court is there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The minority could be the rich - in fact, in this case, it is. .

---

You have an interesting definition of tyranny. Here the majority is trying to stop the minority from corrupting the political process and you call that tyranny.

Oski87;842300886 said:

---

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a country ruled by laws. Perhaps the rich built the laws (the founding fathers were all rich, for the most part) but that is the way it is.

---

The founding fathers also lived in a country ruled by laws. They broke those laws and threw them out. In fact, our founding fathers were the biggest collection of lawbreakers ever to run this country. Unjust laws that no longer serve the will of the people will only take you so far. Laws must support democracy and justice or they will be scrapped using unlawful means by a free people.

sycasey;842300904 said:

---

I have to say that I have a hard time seeing how it will be. This basically allows extremely wealthy individuals to have influence over a much larger group of politicians; they can "buy" more of them. Essentially it consolidates more power among a select few. Is that really the vision the Founding Fathers had for our country? Yes, I realize that they were all wealthy landowners, but for the time what they were doing was EXPANDING power to a larger group of people, not consolidating more at the top.

---

Didn't you read our learned Chief Justice's comments regarding the bright line between merely showering politicians with money and strict quid pro quo?

The former clearly has no connection with the latter. We can all sleep easy at night now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/john-roberts-campaign-finance_n_5086235.html