creator , CeeAmerica


This conversation is closed.

If corporations are people, as the Supreme Court has declared, can they run for President or perhaps Senator?

How long will it be before the President nominates a corporation to the Supreme court? Ex-CEO's already hold many high offices in the government and when they retire they are almost assured a position back with the corporation usually on the Board of Directors or better yet as a lobbyist.
I only thing that I find more absurd than this ruling is that the American people did not immediately start proceedings to remove every justice that voted for it.
Tillman Act of 1907:
"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services."

My, how things have changed!!!

America, are you getting Fed. Up? Me to- here is a short 3min. video I made that demonstrates the problem and offers a solution:

If corporations are people, as the Supreme Court has declared, can they run for President or perhaps Senator?
The Answer is: YES, if the government changes the rules and they are changing the rules in their favor all the time. Who is "their"? the government once belonged to the people but ownership has been hijacked by the corporations for many years now. "We the People" Allowed our Government to be sold to the highest bidder and along with it our land, water and the air and all our natural resources and along with it our children's money and future.

Closing Statement from Keith W Henline

Our government once belonged to the people but ownership has been hijacked by the corporations for many years now. "We the People" Allowed our Government to be sold to the highest bidder and along with it our land, water and the air and all our natural resources and along with it our children's money and future.

At the present time corporations cannot run for office but to change that congress who is visibly controlled by corporations can simply change that law also as they already have so many other laws that used to inhibit corporations.

  • thumb
    Dec 8 2013: I'm afraid the only thing that's absurd, Keith, is your understanding of the law.

    Corporations are equivalent to people only to the extent that they can enter into legal contracts, own property, sue and be sued in the civil court, and be taxed. Corporations cannot vote, cannot hold office, and have no civil rights, just to start. Only people, not corporations, can be charged in the criminal court, because it takes the action of a person to break the law.

    I looks like you've put a great deal of unguided thought into this without bothering to do a little research on the Internet, and it's lead you to make a reactionary and foolish post on TED.
    • Dec 8 2013: TY for your reply Lawren.
      "Man’s law is not just, it is just law"- Keith W Henline
    • thumb
      Dec 8 2013: it is absurd. just like the concept of a "legal person" is. presidency or contract, the only difference is that you get accustomed to the latter.
      • Dec 10 2013: I thought some of the Presidents actions of the past were scary but The Supreme Court even considering this scared the hell out of me but I thought No way on earth can this even have a remote possibility of passing. Then the City of Los Angeles unanimously passed a amendment against it and I thought well someone has some sense in this country. Then BAM it hit like a dagger into my heart, the Supreme Court declared that corporations are in fact "people". The corporations have finally purchased the "Supreme Court" to go along with their other trophies: congress & the White house. I should have saw it coming when the Attorney General was held in Contempt of Congress and still just thumbed his nose at them!
        Pretty hard to beat that hand I would call that a "Royal Flush".

        There is only one way to beat a royal flush, do you know what it is??????
        I'll give you a hint: do you remember the movie "War Games"?
        What is the only way to win a war game??
        The Answer: DON'T PLAY WAR GAMES
        You cannot win a war games, both sides always lose.
        You also cannot beat a game where the other side gets to make up the rules in their favor(like government does).
    • Comment deleted

      • Dec 10 2013: Do you see that little flag in the lower right hand corner.. If you feel that way use it and they will evaluate it, I am sure. The only thing even resembling a name is George W Crazy which as we are all pretty much aware of "does not exist" at least to my knowledge. A TED member no way. However if you would like to have it, it is available...
      • thumb
        Dec 10 2013: Um, what member? I don't see it...
      • thumb
        Dec 10 2013: I don't see any "personal" attacks in this post, although it is amazingly political and is written in such a way that it most definitely could stir up a lot of aggressive posting. I would say that I am surprised that the TED staff allowed it to be posted, but I am not considering the left leaning bias of this site.
        • thumb
          Dec 10 2013: Yep, we're mostly lefties... And non-believers... And smart... Mostly...
        • thumb
          Dec 12 2013: @Jim S....Are you positive that smart belongs in that string ?
    • Dec 10 2013: By the way Lawren, you may be a little surprised about how much I know about the law. I have hired 8 lawyers in my lifetime and fired 6 of them, then represented myself. I have never lost a case and in fact turned every case into my favor. I am not a lawyer although I have studied corporate law in college where I was on the dean's list and when representing myself I go well prepared. I am also not a doctor but I know more about my own body than any doctor does.
      • thumb
        Dec 10 2013: What surprised me was that you misunderstood a Supreme Court decision made in 1819, and spoke as if it was a new development.

        I'm also highly disappointed at haw much you've edited your original post since my first answer.
        • Dec 10 2013: Well Lawren it got your attention didn't it, that was the purpose, I don't fault you for jumping in with both feet, in fact I admire that. I read all the wikipedia stuff long ago but I still believe they had it right in 1907 with the Tillman act. I love wikipedia also and finally sent them a donation after using them for years. I am just as much against politics from a religious pulpit as I believe in separation of church and state. I edited the post because after it got a little attention I didn't want to dilute the focus of the conversation and I figured rightly that the people who were really interested like you would hang around to watch were it goes anyway. Following my logic is not always easy as I like to blow it wide open for all possibilities and then narrow it back down to a simple solution if there is one. Good work Lawren I hope to see more of you.
  • thumb
    Dec 10 2013: The problem is that corporations are not people. They were never declared people. This is an oversimplification of the Supreme Court ruling. Corporations share a lot of virtual freedoms and rights that people have because impinging on those virtual freedoms and rights would result in the violation of the actual freedoms and rights of those involved with the corporation.
    • Dec 10 2013: "The problem is that corporations are not people" I could not have said it better.
      For the sake of argument and to keep this in the "real" world... instead of the virtual world or a duplicate universe, corporations don't have freedoms or rights, people do. Corporations have laws and bylaws because they are a friggen piece of paper, no more. People have flesh and blood and a soul, corporations have wood pulp and ink, they have no soul! They are founded on the principle of "I can break it and force you to fix it or it won't get fixed" that principle is not sustainable.
      • thumb
        Dec 10 2013: Yet it seems that you missed my point entirely. The reason why I say that they have virtual freedoms and rights is that people act through corporations and thus restricting corporations restricts people as well. Let's take for example a restaurant owner who has constructed an S corporation and imagine that the government says "corporations can no longer own property". Surely corporations don't have the actual right to own property, but by restricting the corporation you have in turn restricted the restaurant owner.
        • Dec 10 2013: Are you trying to say that corporations should have NO restrictions? They already operate like a gang, like the Mafia except the Mafia has more compassion. Ask the people of Las Vegas whether that would like to have the Mafia or the corporations running Las Vegas? Everyone that has experienced both will choose the Mafia, why is that?
      • thumb
        Dec 10 2013: The discussion wasn't about whether or not corporations should have any restrictions, or the way in which corporations act. The discussion was about the faulty interpretation of the supreme court decision. When deciding how to treat corporations, we must look at how any treatment would affect the people involved with those corporations. If a law, which acts on a corporation, results in an impingement of freedoms or rights guaranteed to the people then that law is, as a result, unconstitutional.
        • Dec 10 2013: Daniel I appreciate your insistence upon the correct interpretation of the law as it is now. I am well aware of shambles our constitution is in because of corporate lobbying to change the laws in favor of corporations instead of the people they have sworn to protect. I have tried three times to get a serious discussion about responsibility and no-liability laws and TED has rejected it three times even though I have reworded it differently each time to accommodate them.
          The ugly truth is no organization or individuals wants to take responsibility for their actions and corporations are the top of the list. I submitted this conversation as a "joke" out of frustration because no one wants to talk about the "real" problems in the world because we are all involved up to our necks.
          Do you remember in the movie "Shawshank Redemption" where Tim Robbins keeps sending letters to the State asking for funds for a library until finally they give in? Well that is how I feel about bring this subject up for discussion.
          And yes I did word it provocatively just so people would start talking about it. It was meant to be a canon shot over the bow warning people that this is the direction we are headed in. As you will note I posted the way we thought about this in 1907 and now it has completely changed in the other direction!
      • thumb
        Dec 10 2013: You're moving off on too many tangents. Formalize a new question and we can discuss the topic then.
        • Dec 11 2013: OK Daniel, it depresses me anyway, as I said earlier I really didn't think they would consider it as a topic either but they did so here I am. I already cut the time back as far as I could.