I was just thinking: (SCOTUS Legal Question)

[Popol Vuh]

You know how the Conservatives are always looking to overturn Roe Vs. Wade (410 US 113)? So why can't we (in this era of corporatism) put just as much energy into looking to overturn Santa Clara County Vs Southern Pacific Railroad (118 US 394)?

So my question is: I was wondering can't we challenge the notion that a corporation is a human being and doesn't have an unfair advantage in lobbying government? I mean there has to be a clear-cut argument that unarguably destroys that notion - don't you think?

Shouldn't we challenge them on this and make it as visible to the general public that the abortion issue has been made? Especially during this time of corporate whore politicians, corruption, cronyism, no bid contracts and the disintegrating middle-class?


I would love to read any input you have as soon as I get back from my union meeting.

[Neil Lisst]

1. even Democratic Underground is an LLC

The concept of a Corporation as a person is a legal fiction that predates the Constitution. Better give up on that one.

[Czolgosz]

5. Only partly correct. The type of corporations in existence in the 1700s

was totally different than what we know as a corporation today.

[Neil Lisst]

7. Why don't you describe the differences then?

I can hardly wait to hear this.

I'm sure you've read AN ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, by Charles Beard, or you wouldn't be opining on corporate ownership forms in the 1700s. Right?

[Czolgosz]

10. I'm opining on corporate ownership because I used to be an international

corporate lawyer and I have studied legal history as part of my J.D. followed by post-doctorate studies in comparative law. I'm familiar with Beard's AN ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, but I don't recall if I've read it cover-to-cover. Within the legal academy, it's generally considered more as an historically important piece of political thought and not really a work of constitutional scholarship. If you are reading Beard as a constitutional history, that's fine, but that would be like reading Upton Sinclair's THE JUNGLE as a history of the meatpacking industry (which is also fine, but you probably ought to know that it wasn't written for that purpose).

Historically, corporations were chartered for specific limited purposes, corporate ownership of corporations was prohibited, local law-making bodies could impose meaningful restrictions on interstate and international corporations, corporations were not entitled to any right of privacy, it was not legal for corporations to fund political races, etc.

The modern corporation faces none of these limitations.

Here's a few quotes about the rise of corporations you may enjoy:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." — Adam Smith

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln

[Somawas]

2. Take a look at this DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5242184

[damntexdem]

4. The ruling doesn't just give the corporation únity.'

It grants it the 'rights' that persons have -- e.g., freedom of speech. But I don't think the way to do it is by a SCOTUS ruling. It would be better for a progressive movmement to push a constitutional amendment to define corporations as unities different from persons.

[Sooner75]

3. Focusing on Corporate power is key

This is an excellent point.

A couple of months ago, Mother Jones magazine had a GREAT piece that discussed corporations and their power. Essentially, corporations have more rights than any human or group of humans outside of a corporate umbrella. I believe that MJ said that of the 100 biggest economies on the planet 52 are corporations. (Exxon Mobil is probably bigger than Belgium. I can't remember for sure.)

If you wonder why the US doesn't have, say, universal health care -- something that every industrialized nation has, you have to look no further than the corporations who would take a hit if it was a reality. They can use their enormous financial resources and the "superhuman" rights that have been given to them in numerous court cases.

Getting the American people to really come to understand the power of corporations is a key to the whole proposition of getting the governance of this country back to "We, the People" and away from "We, the Money" and "We, the Corporations."

[Neil Lisst]

6. You're attacking the problem wrong.

You are never, never, never, never, never going to change the law regarding corporations, at least not the one that calls them a fictional person.

If you want to address the problems which you ascribe to "corporations," you have to do it at the ballot box. You have to win elections, and in those elections make clear what ACTIVITIES you want to outlaw.

The problem isn't corporations, per se. It's conglomerated power. It's concentration of wealth and power. We had perfectly good Anti-trust standards that prohibited mergers where defense contractors could own NBC News. We need to return to those days, and that approach.

If you want to complain about activities you find objectionable, then go after those. Everyone is a corporation in America. Every business in every city, every farm, everything that is anything is a corporation. Saying you hate corporations because of what some do is like saying you hate blood because it can have cancer in it sometimes.

[Lady President]

8. Premise is too confusing

I agree with the other posters that have stated that corporate law will never change so dramatically. IMO, they are completely correct.

However, if we accept the hypothetically you present, it is still too complicated for the average person to understand and support. I think this is one of the difficulties facing our Party. When we do something illegal or stupid, it is always something the average person understands (i.e. sex, DUI). Republicans do worse things, but they are difficult to understand in a news clip (i.e. illegal campaign donations, disclosure of confidential information).

In your situation, everyone understands abortion and puts moral blame on a woman, much like a typical Democratic scandal involving sex or booze. It is a problem that a "proper" lady wouldn't face. On the other hand corporate law is considered a game that the most clever man wins. I have heard people say that the officers of companies like Enron and Worldcom shouldn't face prison time because it was only money and they didn't hurt people. (At this point I start ranting like a crazy person.)

Even more simply, we will never have the resources to out-lobby the corporate lobbyists.

[Neil Lisst]

9. We have to sell the public limited concepts, easy to understand

For Example,

DIVESTITURE OF ALL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS FROM COMPANIES THAT DO BUSINESS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

Is it too much to ask for media that are not owned by the same companies that profit from a war?