Shale gas was always a myth?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 19 Feb 2014, 22:27

But I think there has been some kind of recent change about the corporate personhood thing, it was making the news a couple of years back, possibly that they've just fought-for and won (official) Human Rights (or else that someone important had only just realised it

) ?

Anyway, my point about "ralph" not posting as a real person still stands...

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Feb 2014, 10:52

RenewableCandy wrote:But I think there has been some kind of recent change about the corporate personhood thing, it was making the news a couple of years back, possibly that they've just fought-for and won (official) Human Rights (or else that someone important had only just realised it ) ?

Anyway, my point about "ralph" not posting as a real person still stands...

Totally in agreement about Ralph. The corporation thing is just a side point and a pet peeve of mine. I don't know of any recent change just that Romney had the nerve to speak the truth and the Dems. pounced on it knowing the mass of voters did not understand the realities of business law.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 20 Feb 2014, 11:09

RenewableCandy wrote:(In case I forgot to mention this before) The reason I refer to ralph as an "it" is that whoever is doing the actual posting does not appear to be posting as a person, but as either a corporation or some kind of lobby. Even in the USA, where corporations are now regarded as having the same rights as people, they still, however, do not (yet?) have gender. So "it" it is, then.

As the bumper sticker goes, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 20 Feb 2014, 12:54

When the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case (2010) that corporations could buy elections via unlimited campaign contributions under the free speech clause of the constitution, Obama had the chance to propose new legislation or a constitutional amendment to redefine the distinction between human persons and corporate “persons.” You’d think that as a constitutional lawyer, he would have been eager to lead on this. But he just ignored the historic opportunity and, anyway, he was on the receiving end of gobs of corporate “free speech” money to run his reelection campaign.

Source

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Feb 2014, 17:56

Well of course corporate "persons' have the right to spend their stockholders money to express their opinion about issues through donations and political advertising. It is up to the voters to decide whose opinions to listen to. Politicians should have to disclose where they got the money from on or before the day they spend it.
The definition of a honest politician is, one that once he's bought he stays bought.
I'd also like to have them wired up someplace sensitive that would give them a good zap every time they told a lie to a voter.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Feb 2014, 19:31

Thanks, Emord, I knew I'd seen it somewhere: Citizens United vs FEC (as illuminated by "The Story of Stuff"), that was where.

D'you know, I don't even know if English law (nb Scots law is a different system) regards "corporations" as people.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 21 Feb 2014, 21:41

RenewableCandy wrote:Thanks, Emord, I knew I'd seen it somewhere: Citizens United vs FEC (as illuminated by "The Story of Stuff"), that was where.

D'you know, I don't even know if English law (nb Scots law is a different system) regards "corporations" as people.

I always thought that this is what limited liability effectively did: Protect owners/shareholders from company actions. The US specifically decided corp. as a person, while in UK it was established by case law. I could be wrong 'tho