Corporate Personhood

[Phi for All]

What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court decision to give corporations the rights of People? For reference, it's known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.

 

I feel that it's an atrocity, and according to most polls, nearly 80% of the American public agree with me. Yet the ruling persists, and it's going to profoundly affect the presidential elections this year in ways that can never be appreciated by the real People in this country.

 

For those who feel this is a partisan issue, the ruling basically overturned the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sponsored jointly by Democrat Senator Russ Feingold and Republican Senator (and former presidential candidate) John McCain. This is strictly corporate maneuvering designed to influence legislation and appropriations in their favor at the expense of the real taxpayers (which many corporations are NOT). Indeed, it has led to forcing the Pentagon to purchase military equipment it doesn't want, doesn't need, and doesn't see a use for. Fortunately, this particular misuse of public funds got overturned, but if Republicans get their way this fall, it will all be back on the table next year.

 

This is what unlimited corporate lobbying has brought us to. Can this really be what the Supreme Court wants for the People it serves?

[JustinW]

If you want a crazy right-wing nut job's point of view on this I'll keep it short. You're right. Corporations shouldn't enjoy the rights of an individual person for the simple fact that they could be going against what the majority of their employees agree with. I have had this same argument about unions. So it seems that if we allow unions to do this, we would also have to allow corporations the same benifit. I personally don't think that anyone should be helping candidates accept for their own campaign committees. It seems that if they can't get elected on their own thoughts and actions that they shouldn't be running in the first place.

[ydoaPs]

If you want a crazy right-wing nut job's point of view on this I'll keep it short. You're right. Corporations shouldn't enjoy the rights of an individual person for the simple fact that they could be going against what the majority of their employees agree with. I have had this same argument about unions. So it seems that if we allow unions to do this, we would also have to allow corporations the same benifit. I personally don't think that anyone should be helping candidates accept for their own campaign committees. It seems that if they can't get elected on their own thoughts and actions that they shouldn't be running in the first place.

 

It seems to be a false analogy. Corporations don't have the employees vote on the actions they take.

[Phi for All]

If you want a crazy right-wing nut job's point of view on this I'll keep it short. You're right. Corporations shouldn't enjoy the rights of an individual person for the simple fact that they could be going against what the majority of their employees agree with. I have had this same argument about unions. So it seems that if we allow unions to do this, we would also have to allow corporations the same benifit. I personally don't think that anyone should be helping candidates accept for their own campaign committees. It seems that if they can't get elected on their own thoughts and actions that they shouldn't be running in the first place.

Actually, I think we should move beyond both maniacally profit-focused corporations and overly rigid labor unions as well. Neither serve the people of this country as they once did.

 

As for campaign financing, I don't even like campaign committee involvement (though I can't imagine a viable alternative). It all seems to favor the party with the most money, which shouldn't be such a huge part of a representative democracy. It sickens me to think of the billion dollar campaigns that are vying for what will inevitably be more of the same old non-working solutions to ever-evolving problems.

 

I'd like to see all candidates be granted free media exposure as long as it's debating with their opponents or that what they air speaks only about themselves and their representation. If they want to trash their opponents instead, even by implication, they can pay for it from their own warchest. At twice the going rate.

 

Corporations don't have the employees vote on the actions they take.

Which is another reason why corporations shouldn't be considered people, imo. If they don't treat their companies like a democracy, they shouldn't enjoy the personal benefits of one.

[JustinW]

ydoaPs,

 

Neither do unions. The last presidential election had alot of support from unions. Do you think that each and every employee under that union got a vote?

 

 

 

Phi,

Neither serve the people of this country as they once did.

Did they ever eally serve the people well. I know the thought of a union is to serve the people, but can you think of one that didn't serve a fat cat better?

 

 

As for campaign financing, I don't even like campaign committee involvement (though I can't imagine a viable alternative).

Yeah, I don't mind their campaigning. But I would prefer if the message came straight from the candidate and not those who pool their resources to give that candidate a voice that may not be genuine.

 

 

I'd like to see all candidates be granted free media exposure as long as it's debating with their opponents or that what they air speaks only about themselves and their representation. If they want to trash their opponents instead, even by implication, they can pay for it from their own warchest. At twice the going rate.

Sounds fair enough I guess, but even the trashing of an opponent can be achieved on the debate stage.

[Sergeant Bilko]

If you want a crazy right-wing nut job's point of view on this I'll keep it short.

 

 

If only

[Phi for All]

Did they ever eally serve the people well. I know the thought of a union is to serve the people, but can you think of one that didn't serve a fat cat better?

Absolutely. Labor unions helped set the standards other businesses had to meet to compete with. And corporations have been instrumental in allowing economic growth for many to remain separate from personal finances. But there are different pressures now and society has changed in one direction where unions and corporations have changed in others. Both are working for the betterment of a few while society needs betterment for many.

 

We can all flourish but we need to stop doing so at the expense of each other. Old paradigms aren't blueprints anymore, they're just old.

 

 

Sounds fair enough I guess, but even the trashing of an opponent can be achieved on the debate stage.

Where near-instantaneous rebuttal is at least possible.

 

If only

Hey! No need for that.

[JustinW]

Bilko,

If only

What's the matter seargent? Skeerd?

 

Phi,

 

Although I don't like to see anything cut into an individuals business for alot of reasons, I can understand some of your points where corporations are conscerned. Working for the better of the few, I might have a slightly different opinion on. The ones who build a company should reep the benifits of that company. With that being said, there are some stipulations I would add such as not mixing in the political field to further their own gains. It seems to me that that falls under the same principle as insider trading.

 

Where near-instantaneous rebuttal is at least possible.

Exactly. Edited April 5, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Although I don't like to see anything cut into an individuals business for alot of reasons, I can understand some of your points where corporations are conscerned. Working for the better of the few, I might have a slightly different opinion on. The ones who build a company should reep the benifits of that company. With that being said, there are some stipulations I would add such as not mixing in the political field to further their own gains. It seems to me that that falls under the same principle as insider trading.

We have ample recourse for punitive measures when corporations break the law but we're not using them. Part of the responsibility that corporations are shirking is built into their state and federal charters, to act ethically with regard to their business dealings. This is, to a large degree, the fault of this corporate personhood movement that gives them the power to flout the law and escape indictment. We know who caused our current financial crisis; why aren't these people on trial?

 

Corporations may be started by a few people, but it's everyone who works there that builds the company (to use your own words). Even though employees are compensated, without them the corporation goes nowhere. Both are needed but you seem to argue that only the starters matter (even though many major corporations change their C-level executives completely every 5-10 years).

 

Owners, executives and shareholders reap many benefits already and always will, but in order to stop what's been happening to our economy, our manufacturing base, our economic stability, we need to have employees more vested in corporate success. In order for that to happen, the focus needs to broaden beyond just the bottom line. And in order for THAT to happen, we need to end this spiral that's creating such a gulf between the ephemeral, short-sighted, money-moving people at the top whose personal investments are protected by charter and the people at the bottom who want stability, longevity, loyalty and integrity in exchange for their commitment and hard work. As normal People, their investments aren't protected by charter and they stand to lose the most when the beans don't add up this quarter.

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs,

 

Neither do unions. The last presidential election had alot of support from unions. Do you think that each and every employee under that union got a vote?

 

 

Actually, they do.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

This is, to a large degree, the fault of this corporate personhood movement that gives them the power to flout the law and escape indictment. We know who caused our current financial crisis; why aren't these people on trial?

 

Did they break the law? Kinda hard to have a trial if it can't be determined what law was broken.

 

 

Before I reply and go further with some of my thoughts on this, why do you think this way? Is this just a general blanket your applying to corporations or is there some specific examples you can give that would target a specific area in corporations that are troubling to you?

 

 

ydoaPs,

 

Actually, they do.

So this is why, out of 3.2 million workers, in the largest teachers union there were only a little over 7500 votes counted to make the union decide to endorse Obama's re-election? That doesn't sound like a majority rule to me. Edited April 9, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Did they break the law? Kinda hard to have a trial if it can't be determined what law was broken.

The Wall Street banks took mismarked mortgage-backed securities (the infamous toxic subprime loans), chopped them up and repackaged them as AAA-rated investments. That's fraud, and Madoff was the only one who went to jail for it because his clients were rich, instead of the state pension funds, middle income private investors and foreign banks that Wall Street targeted. Bank of America executives outright lied about billions of dollars in bonuses they were paying themselves. Most of the banks involved, like Lehman Brothers, hid billions of dollars in subprime loans from their own investors. That's more fraud. And no one is being charged.

 

The only reason most people aren't outraged is because the securities involved are very complicated financial instruments (but still fraudulently organized). It would be easier for us to understand if it were actual homes instead of loans for homes that were involved. If Wall Street had sold houses that fell down a year after you bought them, I can guarantee there would have been justice.

 

 

Before I reply and go further with some of my thoughts on this, why do you think this way? Is this just a general blanket your applying to corporations or is there some specific examples you can give that would target a specific area in corporations that are troubling to you?

Corporations are necessary but the way they're structured gives their shareholders certain benefits that regular citizens don't have, like limiting their personal liability. Giving corporations personhood under the freedom of speech clause creates a super-person in the eyes of the law, yet this "person" can't be sentenced to jail.

 

Justice John Paul Stevens, in his 90-page dissenting opinion paper, argued that, “[a]lthough they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.” He also said, “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

 

I feel that corporations, by their very nature, will always work towards making the most money, in any way they can as long as they don't get caught. Giving them the ability to change the laws so they can't be found guilty of breaking them is dangerous in the extreme. Corporations are tools, and you don't treat tools the same way you treat people. Especially when it"s the People the Constitution talks about.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

I don't know if I'm up for a discussion on this topic due to my lack of knowledge in the corporate world. That being said I have a fairly straight forward opinion of what a business should and should not be able to do. For instance, I don't know why you call it corporate personhood. The fact of the matter is that corporations have less liability than a person outside of the veil. So I think you could start calling it corporate above personhood. And really this all depends on what type of corporation you are talking about. Some are easier for justice to break through the veil tha others. And this opinion piece by Stevens kind of strikes me weird. When did we start believing in this corporate personhood crap. If this is the case why aren't they treated like a person? Just because there may be alot of shareholders that don't make the decisions of a corporation doesn't mean that the CEOs and the board of trustees can't be held just as liable as a person who runs a smaller business. So in this respect they don't treat corporations like people. And also in this respect I would prefer that they would, because a person with no liability will more than likely go against moral/ethical behavior in order to gain more of what they want. (which in this case is money) I disagree with you about the nature of corporations. It is not the nature of corporations, rather it is the nature of man that has no personal liability or consequences to the actions that they make. Does that make any sense?

[iNow]

When did we start believing in this corporate personhood crap.

Since 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Again in 1823 via Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet. Once more in 1877 under Munn v. Illinois. It was then reinforced in 1886 by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. More in 1906 by Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs. It was then upheld yet again in 2010 by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (also in a few other related).

Edited April 11, 2012 by iNow

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

Since 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Again in 1823 via Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet. Once more in 1877 under Munn v. Illinois. It was then reinforced in 1886 by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. More in 1906 by Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs. It was then upheld yet again in 2010 by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (also in a few other related).

You sure take things literaly don't ya? However you seem to have skipped over my entire point, but I am coming to realize that that is to be expected.

[iNow]

The problem is with the author, not the audience.

 

Said another way:

 

Does that make any sense?

No, I'm not entirely clear on your intended point. Can you present this another way to help me?

[JustinW]

My point was that I would like to see corporations become more like people where liability is conserned. I have a problem with calling it "corporate personhood". If a corporation goes bankrupt and is up to there nose in debt, do those who make the decisions for those corporations have any stake in the game other than their jobs? No. Every other type of business owner does though. If a smaller business owner gets sued, their personal assets are on the line if their business isn't big enough to cover it. For what reason can't a corporation be the same? They are made up of people are they not? If we treated corporations like tools then where would liability fall? Nowhere. We don't hold a tool responsible when the operator of that tool uses it incorrectly. We blame the person using that tool. If we treated corporations like people, then those who make the decisions would be responsible for those decisions. Whether it be a CEO or a board of trustees it makes no difference. As it stands now corporations are above personhood.(hence the comment about calling it, corporate "above" personhood) And my comment about "when did we start believing in this corporate personhood crap" was to reflect that corporations have always been above personhood when it comes to personal liability and legal responsibility, at least to some degree higher than the person. So the outrage towards such an event, as corporations getting away with murder, is somewhat over the top. I wish they did have the same rights. That at least might keep them in better check than having to have a judge "break the veil" once HE DECIDES that someone is taking advantage of a corporations limited liability. So no, don't call it personhood, call it "Corporate toolhood" because that is exactly how and why they get away with more than an individual would had they been running a business without shareholders.

 

Like I said, I haven't been up on the intricacies of corporate structure and responsibility, but this is my grasp of the situation so far even if it's a flawed reasoning. Does anyone feel that this assertion is wrong? If so, then how, because I might have easily overlooked something.

[iNow]

Thanks for clarifying. My only immediate thought (and this may be where your lack of knowledge of large corporations is an obstacle for you) is in how things get done. There are usually at least 5 or 6 people involved in every decision... In every item that is worked on... In every budget process... Every communication... Every acquisition... Every customer visit... Every everything. If something goes wrong, how do you decide WHICH of those people is to blame? All of them? Does Sally get 70% liability but Jimmy only gets 30%?

 

It's not as black and white as you seem to think, but I tend to agree with what I perceive as your central point. There needs to be accountability.

 

Also, I like a joke I heard about Romney's time at Bain Capital when his group would purchase companies, gut them, run them to bankruptcy, and walk away with massive profits. It goes, "If corporations are people, then Romney is a mass murderer." Anyway... Thought I'd share. I only came into the thread to address a question about when the personhood thing started. Didn't realize you didn't want an answer to that question you'd asked, so my apologies.

[JustinW]

I only came into the thread to address a question about when the personhood thing started. Didn't realize you didn't want an answer to that question you'd asked, so my apologies.

Naw it was really just an offhanded comment to show that my sanity was slipping.

 

 

 

edit:as afterthought.

Surely there has to be a way to judge levels of corruption and accountability. As to say who did what, when. Then judge them seperately based on their individual actions.

Edited April 11, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

For instance, I don't know why you call it corporate personhood.

I didn't make the name up.

 

Thanks to President Clinton, corporations can now own media outlets AND other business sectors as well. By giving vastly wealthy businesses the right to use their control of media to influence federal elections, the SCOTUS' decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission has completely undermined what little confidence the voter can have that the popular vote is being handled with integrity. Campaign finance reform has been kicked to the curb once more.

 

Corporations, the really big ones that are capable of spending $84M on lobbying to receive $8.4B in tax breaks, are made up of people but it's the few people at the top who will determine how their freedom of speech is going to be transformed into political collateral. Bain Capitol is a $66B corporation that owns the largest group of radio stations in the country, and they are now unrestricted from political expenditures. Their founder? Mitt Romney. How in the world can that NOT be considered a conflict of our interest in a fair election procedure? I put that right up there with awarding a mega-billion dollar, no-bid contract to the Vice President's former company to service a war he rushed us to engage in.

 

Edit: I started this post back before iNow's joke about Romney but got sidetracked by phone calls. The joke just points up how politicians and corporate CEOs are colluding to give them the best of both worlds and a power base that We the People may never be able to survive.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Phi for All

[tomgwyther]

Just as a side note:

In the UK; in my own dealings. As well as giving a corporation the same status as a person, one can also apply to the person, the stautus of corporation. I tend to look on any dealings I as a living individual have, not as being between me and X corporation. But, rather between two legal corporate entities; one of which, I am the sponsor of.

 

In short, as well as exmining corporate personhood, there is also the issue of personal corporatehood.

Moreover, the point is somewhat moot as a person and a corporation are effectively the same thing and have been for some years.

[DrDNA]

If any of you have the brain washed idea that our current Supreme Court has not violated their constitutional mandate of interpreting the law, leaving the legislative branch to make law, then I suggest they do some research (as iNow apparently has).

 

Hear me now and listen to me later. Our current Supreme Court MAKES LAW...period.

 

Case in point.Just a few minutes ago I, myself, was sitting on the library/pottie/throne reading my beloved 2008 Almanac, purchased in 2010 from the $0.99 store; at a savings of about $12. As I randomly opened this intriguing book, it immediately fell to a page titled Major Cases of Jurisprudence...something.....Supreme Court. Being from AZ, Miranda v Arizona caught my eye immediately.

 

But on the other side of the page, directly across from M v AZ, something near and dear to my heart. I.e. corporations as people. ....Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad 1886..

 

Although it has been a couple of years since I argued with you dummies, I knew that you must be "debating" the issue.

I hurried about my business at hand and ran with God's Speed to my computer.

I immediately came to this website and typed in Santa Clara County.

And, to the lack of my surprise, this thread was the first to appear.

The Lord works in mysterious ways!

I also noticed that iNow has, cited this monumental case and several related others, but gave no details.

 

Now, iNow....most people (even the intellectually stimulated ilk on here, must be spoon fed.

 

You should know that very few people actually look stuff up. This is why 15 second sound bites, millions and billions of 15 seconds of vomit, all fed by the Super PACs ("not people" multinational things and ids), are running the primary and will be running the election.

 

So here there they are (the details).

 

In the 1886 case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, the Supreme Court directed the lawyers that they were of the opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protections to corporations in addition to natural persons. This was not a ruling, but has been treated as precedent.[12]

 

In 1818, the United States Supreme Court heard the case Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), making the following statement in their decision: "The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."

 

Seven years after the Dartmouth College opinion, the Supreme Court decided Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet, (1823) in which an English corporation dedicated to missionary work, with land in the U.S., sought to protect its rights to that land under colonial-era grants against an effort by the state of Vermont to revoke the grants. Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons. Seven years later, Chief Justice Marshall stated that, "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

As a side note, I find it interesting that very liberal leaning segments of the population would prefer to classify corporations as "non-persons". I would have anticipated them to be on the other side of this fence.....................

 

The Green Party of the United States,[6] Greens/Green Party USA,[7] the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom,[8] Democracy Unlimited, and former Vice-President Al Gore[9] have objected to the idea of corporate personhood, focusing on constitutional protections—such as the right to contribute to political campaigns—that are granted to corporations. Gore argues that the 1886 Southern Pacific decision entrenched the 'monopolies in commerce' that Thomas Jefferson had wanted to prohibit.[9]

 

My link

[iNow]

Don't be such a tease, Doc. At least cut my steak for me, too, while you're feeling so generous.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Thanks to President Clinton, corporations can now own media outlets AND other business sectors as well. By giving vastly wealthy businesses the right to use their control of media to influence federal elections, the SCOTUS' decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission has completely undermined what little confidence the voter can have that the popular vote is being handled with integrity. Campaign finance reform has been kicked to the curb once more.

I'm not saying you did make it up. And the name does make sense from the freedom of speech view point. But on this issue I believe we might disagree a little. I think that this current conflict of interest may be just a coinsidental fluke. If this matter didn't involve the head of a corporation that is running for president, there would be nothing wrong with a corporation owning media outlets. Like I've said before, I have a straight forward idea of what businesses should and shouldn't do. Holding to that principle, I don't believe we should start deciding who is able to buy what. If a corporation wants to invest in a business they should have that right as long as the business is legal and conducted in a legal manner.

I can see your point on this current conflict of interest, but have these media outlets been flooding the air waves with onesided support for Romney? I haven't heard that there was any missuse of these outlets. Bain Capital owns Clearchannel doesn't it? Just so I'm not confusing one outlet for another?

 

 

The joke just points up how politicians and corporate CEOs are colluding to give them the best of both worlds and a power base that We the People may never be able to survive.

How so? I didn't get that at all from the joke. My previous point still holds water. We would have to get rid of media across the board where groups of people are involved. Such as community organization groups, unions, superpacks, etc...if we were to limit corporations as well. I believe if we did this a campaign would be more legite as far as the candidate speaking for themselves. But I also don't agree with that, since no matter what a persons message is, or how many it reaches, or who is doing the speaking...speach is still free in this country and I don't believe we should start regulating it.

Looking at the big picture and not just free speach, or healthcare, or gun rights, or etc..., why does it seem like a one way street for the most part? Once things are restricted they are hardly ever given any relief, and I'm beginning to understand why some people are paranoid about a soicialized government. It makes sense from both perspectives most of the time, but I guess it's just a matter of how much you value freedom over security that decides you on how you'll view a subject. I partly blame our comfort in life for people lacking that pride of freedom that I think we used to enjoy. I don't know...I'm just thinking out loud I suppose.

[Phi for All]

I think that this current conflict of interest may be just a coinsidental fluke. If this matter didn't involve the head of a corporation that is running for president, there would be nothing wrong with a corporation owning media outlets.

This is technically another topic, but we used to require that corporations that owned media outlets could ONLY own media outlets. We understood the incredible power the media has to shape public opinion. We understood that people looked to media outlets as their main source of news, which the vast majority like to hear unvarnished and as impartial as possible.

 

Like I've said before, I have a straight forward idea of what businesses should and shouldn't do. Holding to that principle, I don't believe we should start deciding who is able to buy what. If a corporation wants to invest in a business they should have that right as long as the business is legal and conducted in a legal manner.

So you approve of some of the tricks Romney used to make money for his investors, like buying a company that employs thousands of Americans, then bleeding off its cash and forcing it to take on the debts of some of his other holdings, then taking a big tax write-off when it's forced to close its doors and kick those workers to the curb? Is that your idea of free-market capitalism? I think it's horrible when the real heroes of the American economy, those businesses that not only play by the rules but also by the spirit of the rules, are getting hedged out by these mega-corporations that just pay to re-write the rules when it suits them.

 

I can see your point on this current conflict of interest, but have these media outlets been flooding the air waves with onesided support for Romney? I haven't heard that there was any missuse of these outlets. Bain Capital owns Clearchannel doesn't it? Just so I'm not confusing one outlet for another?

Do you think any Clear Channel news editor would ever run a story about a Bain Capital holding that laid off a thousand workers and sent their jobs overseas right at Christmas time? Owning 850 radio stations means no one who counts on you for news is ever going to hear a bad word about your other companies.

 

Do you think they would ever run an op-ed piece on how strange it is that the GOP is backing a candidate who is one of the Wall Street kingpin crowd that the majority of economists on the planet says was instrumental in causing the 2008 financial crisis that cost 8,000,000 American jobs adn plunged the whole world into turmoil? They don't have to lie to misuse the power of the press. They can simply not report things they think will harm their employer's other businesses.

 

Clear Channel had a well-known policy of never airing anything critical about George Bush (or any Republican, for that matter). You can't argue that it's out of respect for the office of the President, since they have no such policy regarding Barack Obama. Is that what you want from your news outlet, cherry-picking stories? Is that really what journalism is all about?

 

How so? I didn't get that at all from the joke. My previous point still holds water. We would have to get rid of media across the board where groups of people are involved. Such as community organization groups, unions, superpacks, etc...if we were to limit corporations as well. I believe if we did this a campaign would be more legite as far as the candidate speaking for themselves. But I also don't agree with that, since no matter what a persons message is, or how many it reaches, or who is doing the speaking...speach is still free in this country and I don't believe we should start regulating it.

We don't have to get rid of the media. We just have to repeal the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was sold to Congress as a way to foster competition in that market, but it did just the opposite. We went from having 50 major media groups in 1983 (who holdings were primarily in media) to 6 in 2005. We decreased the number of media owners while the actual number of outlets increased.

 

Information is power and the media shapes public opinion which elects our legislators. Tell me you see how reducing competition and allowing these companies unbridled access to our lawmakers is a huge conflict of interest, PLEASE!

 

Looking at the big picture and not just free speach, or healthcare, or gun rights, or etc..., why does it seem like a one way street for the most part? Once things are restricted they are hardly ever given any relief, and I'm beginning to understand why some people are paranoid about a soicialized government. It makes sense from both perspectives most of the time, but I guess it's just a matter of how much you value freedom over security that decides you on how you'll view a subject. I partly blame our comfort in life for people lacking that pride of freedom that I think we used to enjoy. I don't know...I'm just thinking out loud I suppose.

Is that what you think, that once a regulation is in place that "they are hardly ever given any relief"?! What about the people those regs protect? What happens when politicians gut the regulations like Bush II did, to give these corporations some "relief"? Did that end up solving any problems for anybody but the guys at the top? How has that worked out for us?