Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Listen up, Supreme Court — corporations are not people!

April 27, 2013

I am so concerned about the law the Supreme Court passed identifying a corporation as a person. Therefore, no one can stop a candidate running for office from spending as much as they want to....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(9)

Regelski

Apr-30-13 12:20 PM

Kristopher disapproves of unions, and extols the virtue of Big Business (and seems to have an ax to grind about the League of Woman voters). Daily in the news are stories of Big Business (Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Banks) in legal or regulatory trouble for greed (not to mention degradation of the environment, as with Big Oil). Too big to fail, too big to bail (out), too big to jail--that's not good for America. How many bankers were convicted for the economic debacle of 2008? That SEIU's contributions are public is the point of all this: without transparency, we have no idea who is greasing whose palms in return for what. It's unfair and unwarranted to group local small business owners in with the Big Players in the market. Among other things, one of the aims ob Big Business destroy local business. For example, Amazon**** would force local book stores to close if it continues not to charge sales taxes.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kristopher

Apr-29-13 6:19 PM

Mrs. Valone, did your "League of Women Voters" friends also tell you that the SEIU labor union alone spent $60.7 MILLION dollars on Obama's election in 2008 (and publically said that they EXPECTED him to reward their "investment")? If you think it is unfair for corporations, which you see as special interests, to contribute large amounts to a candidate, then I would submit that it is equally wrong for labor unions to contribute large amounts. By the way, why do you assume that all corporations have nefarious motives? You were once a business owner, were you unscrupulous in your dealings? If not, then why do you assume that of others? Everyone is bad but you? Do you take the time to notice how much many companies contribute to charities like the United Way, Red Cross, and others? And don't give me that "it's a tax write-off" crap. I write off my donations, too, but that savings is only a small percentage of the donation.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truthteller

Apr-28-13 2:48 PM

There is NOTHING in the Move to Amend movement. and NOTHING on their website, and NOTHING in their transparent sponsorship that should alarm any reasonable person. It is so incredibly benign, I am beside myself with disbelief that the ironically named "American" and Joew would object to. NOTHING in Move to Amend threatens their Constitutional rights. NOTHING is inconsistent with the government as laid out by the founding fathers, who would have recoiled in horror at Citizens United. Here's the deal--American and Joe and other misinformed Faux News watchers would be ANGRY if a liberal corporation like Ben and Jerrys was spending millions and billions of dollars to advertise for a hand-selected Democrat. It's just that Citizens has been used lopsidedly for Republican candidates and against Democrats, so "American" and Joe are happy as can be with it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Apr-28-13 12:17 AM

Ties to World Social Forum, the U.S. Social Forum, ties to Democracy Unlimited(A vote for any republican is a vote for cancer, war, poverty and ignorance. It is a vote to sell ''your'' social security and medicare account to wall Street in return for a voucher. Don't be a fool again). You think maybe a little more then radical.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Apr-27-13 8:49 PM

WOW-just looked at Move To Amend and the endorsing organizations and some of their policy statements. Talk about a radical bunch,yikes! Headquartered out of Eureka,CA should be the first clue.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Apr-27-13 6:13 PM

Regelski...exactly!!!

We need to get the money out of our ballot boxes. We are to have elections NOT auctions.

Right now there is nothing that would stop a corporation from coming in, choosing a candidate for our county executive, and then funding hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars into their campaign.

This is one of the most serious threats to our democracy. There are many groups working to change this..one is MOVE TO AMEND that has a branch in Buffalo.

We the People should DEMAND that this be changed. Many ways we can do this...constitutional amendment, legislatively, etc

but do something we MUST

Thanks Margaret for an article on such an important issue.

Oh and your son is VERY smart. Tell him so from me!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Apr-27-13 12:20 PM

Mike is misinformed and misleading. At stake is whether a corporation is a person and thus has a right of free speech to spend as much as it wants on political issues without any public accountability. Every corporation already pays taxes; the status relevant to treating a corporation as "a person" is relative to a recent Supreme Court decision ruling that a corporation is a person regarding free speech. There are plenty of arguments against this not in Ms. Valone's letter. One is that it puts a lot of power into rich hands. Another is that a corporation is a collective entity and, thus, the question arises as to whether it can or should presume to speak for all its employees--including those unionized (and where the corporation may support issues contrary to what, for example, union members consider to be in their best interests. Many criticize the role Big Business played in the last election, under this ruling. The point about tax breaks doesn't apply to this issue.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Apr-27-13 12:20 PM

Mike is misinformed and misleading. At stake is whether a corporation is a person and thus has a right of free speech to spend as much as it wants on political issues without any public accountability. Every corporation already pays taxes; the status relevant to treating a corporation as "a person" is relative to a recent Supreme Court decision ruling that a corporation is a person regarding free speech. There are plenty of arguments against this not in Ms. Valone's letter. One is that it puts a lot of power into rich hands. Another is that a corporation is a collective entity and, thus, the question arises as to whether it can or should presume to speak for all its employees--including those unionized (and where the corporation may support issues contrary to what, for example, union members consider to be in their best interests. Many criticize the role Big Business played in the last election, under this ruling. The point about tax breaks doesn't apply to this issue.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Apr-27-13 10:22 AM

Margaret, Courts cannot pass laws. They can rule them either Constitutional or UN-Constitutional. Calling a corporation a person is a good thing in my book. Now they are forced to file a tax return and not get away with paying nothing. Personal deductions are no where near as lucrative as corporate write offs. Counties and municipalities will no longer be able to offer them property tax breaks because "they" are people, not an entity. I wonder how long it will take for the corporation lawyers to start screaming they aren't a person.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web