"A person whose behavior is largely amoral and asocial and who is characterized by irresponsibility, lack of remorse or shame, perverse or impulsive (often criminal) behavior."  

That's Webster's definition of a psychopath, but it sure sounds like a corporate "person." Mussolini preferred the term "corporatism" over "fascism." That's where we're headed.

Yawn...

Oh-- almost forgot: for those who can't make Friday evening's talk/social, "the crew" will be speaking at UWS' Yellowjacket Union, Room 203, at noon on Friday.

Also, just in case you missed them, there will be a "meet n' greet" Saturday morning at 9 at Amazing Grace in Canal Park.

If "corporations" wish to be treated as persons, as the Supreme Court says they should be, then they should be subject to all of the same laws that "normal" persons are.

FYI, Bob: Unions aren't people either, nor are they corporations. 
U.S. economic power? Not to come off as a total ass, but the future is not as rosy as we think. 

U.S. Debt Clock

Excellent points, Will. Glad to read a someone with some business and legal sense.

Great points Will, but corporations (and unions) are still abstract entities not people. Seems like they do a good enough job not paying taxes to worry about whether they legally should or not.

Isn't a Union, "an individual 'in association with other individuals'"? So if Corporations can't contribute as a person would, then Unions shouldn't be allowed to either. 

They are both, to use the term thrown out there by others, abstract entities. Both formed for and run by people. Both are created to better the lives of their members. Both groups should be allowed to do with their money as they see fit within the confines of the law. 
That is all the ruling did. It guaranteed that individuals, even in a group such as a corporation can have their say in the government meant to serve all people.

I don't necessarily think my personal opinions are very useful to such discussions.

But, here goes. 

I believe that money is speech. The implications of a contrary judgment are a bit frightening. McCain-Feingold, in part, made a contrary judgment. Under M-F, certain types of ads were banned within a specified timeframe of an election (with the money-does-note-equal-speech as PART of the reasoning for their ability to establish/enforce such a ban). No matter how distasteful and annoying (or who paid for them), I don't think many people want to ban ads near an election. I think there are few clearer examples of (not particularly elevated) political speech. And, that ban favors a particular interest (incumbents) pretty heavily.

When it comes to the Citizens United case, I think they made the right decision. In the US, we recognize collectives of all kinds as legal "persons" for a vast array of good reasons. Those persons have political interests (and legal obligations) that they should be allowed to promote (and fulfill). And, in all fairness (and to an extent legal doctrine), if they don't have a right to promote their interests, their legal obligations become limited. 

On the details of the case, it was a movie - sure a long attack ad in the guise of a film - but still a film. Folks on the political fence didn't go pay to go see what was, essentially, a long attack ad. Just as (almost) nobody in the middle, politically, pays to see Michael Moore films. They were preaching to the choir and it had little effect.

So, unions (particularly other-than-public unions), corporations, NGOs, charities, cooperatives, and motorcycle gangs should have a right to spend on political discourse as they see fit. And, they have legal obligations in society. Rights and obligations should always be closely linked. Beyond that, just give me transparency.

TimK -

Collective effort. Contribute to a PAC that has similar views. Join a political party that represents your ideas. 

Check out the list of big contributors to political activities I alluded to earlier:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Koch Industries comes in at number 83.  ActBlue, "a clearinghouse for Democratic action," is number one - if people want to be part of a counterbalance to Koch politics, they can give to them or several other groups more influential than Koch.

Besides, bringing Koch Industries into this discussion is irrelevant as it's not a corporation, but a privately held company (your article mentions that). As a privately held company, the proprietors can do with the profits as they see fit without the same accounting rules as a corporation. In other words, make rules that cover business (not just corporate) donations and you haven't touched the Koch brothers...unless you want to make rules that limit individual donations as well as donations of collective (and corporate entities). I don't think that's wise.

I say let Koch industries, let AT&T, let Donald Trump (lord save us), let George Soros donate as much as they want. It's speech. I just want to know who is donating to whom so that if it appears during the next legislative session that those who took the donations are acting as if they're beholden to those who gave I can adjust my next decision.

If somebody ain't makin a profit, the turrurists win.