Reactionary Majority on U.S. Supreme Court Issues Historically Bad Decision

Well of course this was the right thing to do.  At its core, a corporation is nothing more than a business entity run by a group of people.  When you say you don't want corporations "interfering" in elections, what you are really saying is that you don't want this particular group of people, calling themselves a corporation, "interfering" in an election.  Doesn't the First Amendment permit freedom of assembly and freedom to redress grievances?  I think any set of individuals has the right to form any group they want and to exercise their First Amendment rights as loudly as they want, and I don't care if that group calls itself a "couple", "family", "corporation", "labor union", "nonprofit", "NGO", "special interest group", "political party", or even just "a bunch of random people".

To put it succinctly: if I have the right to speak my mind, I still retain that right even if I decide to join a group, and it doesn't matter what that group is called.

Let's summarize.  Corporations should receive rights guaranteed under the Constitution because they are made up of individuals.   Ok. Individuals can vote. Therefore should corporations be able to vote?   What about bear arms?  Can they be drafted then?  No? So there are limitations then on what rights corporations receive.  So why not freedom of speech? Why is that different? What about the local cub scout troop. Do they have the same freedom of speech rights and other constitutional protections?  What about say hypotetically a gay cub scout troop leader?  Same or different rights as a non-gay cub scout group leader?   Now I belong to a Facebook group called I Love My Basset Hound. Does this group also have the same rights as an individual?   What about voting rights?  If we commit libel, who pays the fine or serves the jail time?  Do we have a collection to raise the money?  Or just randomly pick someone?  How does that work?  Should this Facebook group have the same ability to donate to political causes without restrictions simply because they are a group of individuals?

I recently incorporated. Why? Because my corporate structure, is different than me.  It offers different tax rates, legal protections and other benefits.  Unlike me, it can't be hit by a bus.  It can't develop heart disease. It has no feelings, morals or regrets.  It just is.  That doesn't mean that it has interests that are affected by politics, it does. However, that doesn't mean that it also should receive the same benefits from government.  For example, I can't send my corporation to school.  There's no disability benefits if I get hurt.  I get them, but my corporation doesn't.  My corporation doesn't have a passport, drivers license or social security card.  And neither does my basset hound. Why? Because they aren't people.

Let's just think about some consequences here. 

1. If GE has foreign share holders, do they have any additional constitutional rights other than this ability to fund political campaigns in the U.S.?  Do we really want a Chinese, or French or German or Al-Kaeda owned corporation being able to spend as much money as they want on candidates?  Perhaps secretly until the election is done?  We've just spent 8 years hearing arguments about how non-U.S. citizens do not deserve Constitutional protections simply because they were not Americans. Now we learn that they do get constitutional protections?   Guess that was all bull shit.  What about foreign owned corporations doing business in the U.S. You know the ones that don't pay any taxes here? Do they now have the ability to sponsor candidates? I vaguely remember Republicans getting their panties in a bunch over DNC getting a few bucks from foreign sources in the 1990s. Guess that is kosher now.  Good plan.

2.  Wall Street firms are going to pay out what 30 billion dollars or so in bonuses?  That's just bonuses and not even revenue.  And that's just say 20-30-40 companies?   Now can you honestly and with a straight face say that if they hypothetically took the bonuses only and dropped that into politics that this would not be a problem?  Just stop and think  about that. Not whether they SHOULD be able to, but whether it's a GOOD idea.  We spent, as a nation, on a presidential election, a 4 year cycle, what 1.5 billion or so?  Probably less.  And allowing potentially 20 times that to come into politics every year is not a problem?  And that assumes that only Wall Street would do it?  That's really crazy. 

3. If I were an individual or hypothically a foreign government and wanted to get around this campaign limit on donations. How would I do that?  Let's see. How would I do that.... Ok maybe if I just set up a dummy corporation for $49.00 or so and have them make the donations?  Hmmm. that could work, after all corporations as a different more powerful class of citizen doesn't have any limitations on campaign finance. 

4. Let's now talk about tax treatment for political speech and corporations. Is it a business expense, kinda part of the marketing budget?  I'ld hate to think so but on the other hand, it is a cost of doing business right?   So theoretically if my corp makes $10 billion in profit, and I decide to  donate it to Candidate A, does that mean I can write off that $10 billion and pay no taxes on it?  Interesting concept.  And if so, then doesn't it seem fair that non-corporate individuals can write off their political donations as well?

It really is nuts to think that the potential amount of money that could be coming into the political system is not a bad thing.  And we're not just talking about national level.  Just stop and think about races for local school boards or city councils  Let's say hypothetically I was a corporation being sued by a town for not performing on a contract.  How would I fix that issue?  Or let's say I was a corporation that wanted to win a contract from a town. How would I encourage that problem to be solved?   The potential for corruption here is just insane.

The decision and the effect of the decision are 2 different things. The ruling might be constitutionaly correct but it will make corporations a bigger player in politics at a time when some think they already have too much power. I think the problem is that voters base their voting mostly on TV/Radio ads which makes winning elections all about outspending your opponent.  Money gets you on TV, not princples. 

you still make no sense. 

"However, if a group of people come together and want to exercise their free speech rights collectively, they retain the right to do so, even if they choose to call themselves a corporation"

Individuals can't call themselves a corporation.  They belong to a corporation as shareholders or company officials but they are NOT the corporation.  Point me at the person(s) named Microsoft, or Google, or McDonalds.  What's their phone number I'ld like to meet them for coffee. They don't exist.   That's the whole point of a corporation, to provide a legal framework for enabling individuals to act cohesively, share profit and be legally protected. That's why you incorporate.  Duh. 

Please point me at the law that says if I belong to a corporation, say as an employee, shareholder or officer that says I now cannot exercise my free speech rights by donating to a candidate.  Please show me.  Can you? No. Why because belonging to a group does not prevent me from donating, up to established limits, money to a candidate.  My individual free speech rights are still protected.  Now can I do it in the name of a corporation?  Not until now.  So what if I own a stock in GE. I am a shareholder and by definition then part of the corporation. I "own" part of the corporation. Now that must mean then, that I can donate to your Republican buddy David Duke's campaign. GE has just made a donation to the former leader of the KKK.  Wow. Does that make sense at all? No of course not. Why? Because I'm acting as an individual and not GE even though I'm "part" of GE.  You're just dumb.

The point is that citizens don't lose their rights when they decide to come together and form corporations.

Yeah you're absolutely right. Citizens don't lose their rights when they join a corporation.  They still can donate to political parties, march in tea parties, wave their Obama is a Black Nazi from Kenya signs write on blogs, and marry who ever they choose. Unless they're gay then they've already lost their rights.  Thanks for the insight. You are a moron.

The corporate tax in the US is an income tax. 

Not true. Income by definition is revenue. Corporate taxes are on profits. Hello!  Anyone in there?  I'ld like to donate a clue to you. 

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

Corporate "income" tax is not a tax on corporate income. It would be more accurate to call it a corporate "profit" tax. Corporate "taxable income" is that which remains after most business expenses have been deducted.

So now I'm sure you're going to pretend that you don't understand the distinction between profit and income. Sorry I can't explain it in smaller words. But you probably don't need big words flipping burgers at Sonic, so you're cool.

Tax rate also depends on many things. Foreign income is not taxable in many cases.  If I am an S Corp, and basically operating as a single sole proprietor I set my income and pay myself that. I pay income tax on that. Hey it's a number that I simply make up that is reasonable.  Then everything above that is a distribution and taxed differently. That's the whole point of being a corporation. Know before you blow. 

Now the final point is corruption.  This certainly should be taken into consideration. Why would you enact a law that has obvious negative consequences? Oh yeah, you're republican.  Do you have to be rich to donate to a polical organization? No of course not.  It's not an issue of wealth, it's an issue of relativity.  Corporations are not individuals. They are groups of individuals.  There are not too many individuals who can write a check and donate 100 million to a campaign.  But there are lots of corporations that can. Hell they can get a loan to do that. Issue a bond or stock.  Why not?  What's it worth to Lockheed Martin to save a bomber?  Millions.  So a quick check or two for a million or two is a no brainer.  Think that woud get some greedy smuck running for congress's attention fast? Corporations are likely to be much larger than individuals in voice and capability.  Again no one is saying that individuals be prevented from donating. Just corporations.  Obviously you are very confused.  Put the same limits on corporations as individuals and this would not be an issue. 

The consequence of this decision is that corporations, which you won't admit because you're not man enough, is that politicians will be bought and sold like cattle. End of story. 

Now go bury your head in the sand and let real people run the country.

And he's an angry lib.

Thanks Bob. Liberal good, conservative bad. Got it. Thanks for your insight.

Jackass. Perhaps he could get the first annual John Smith award . . .