Current Events > If Citizens United makes corporations people, then owning stocks is slavery

(+) Yeah! (+)

slightly dumb shower thought . Tif

---

how do you get ownership of stocks?

if corporations are people can you give them the death penalty

---

Sackgurl posted...

if corporations are people can you give them the death penalty

That's actually a thing in law but AFAIK is never been used. People pushed for it during the Equifax disaster but it never went anywhere.

---

Jail big corps.

Mr Hangman posted...

And Citizens United does not "make corporations people".

No, what it does is grant certain rights of an individual person to a non-person entity.

The caveat is, and the point of the meme too, is that rights come with responsibilities. No matter the degree of corporate personhood, they cannot be absolved of those responsibilities.

And fact of the matter is regarding political speech, corporations do not represent a true aggregate of the views of the often thousands of people that comprise them.

Citizens United grants the ability for corporations to consolidate a massive, unlimited to use, amount of economic power (and thus, political influence) into the hands of a handful of individuals and in some cases a single actual person, without any substantive obligation or oversight to and by the bulk of individuals that comprise those corporations.

This is why this:

Mr Hangman posted...

You can do that with other people through some organization or on your own.

Is a horrifically uneducated response. There is a vast difference here. Regular political entities are better obligated to their individual contributers and are purpose built to forward specific causes or groups of causes.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

Citizens United was a regular political entity.

Are you seriously conflating Citizens United the nonprofit organization with Citizens United the landmark decision of the SCOTUS?

Mr Hangman posted...

Corporations make regular political donations all the time, but the kind of spending that the Citizens United case allowed is mostly done by dedicated political organizations.

Ah, that explains it. You dont actually know what you're talking about.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

I'm not conflating them. People always make this case about corporations, but it was about a PAC, Citizens United. Can any of the people who whine about the decision really argue that the case was wrongly decided on the facts of the case? That it should be illegal for a group to produce and pay for an ad against Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidate?

People aren't upset that you can buy an ad against Hillary Clinton. They are upset that the ruling effectively created a loophole bypassing campaign donation and spending limits functionally selling democracy to the highest bidder.

The case was also decided entirely based on "but if this was an ad about milk nothing would be illegal" which completely sidesteps the fact that they're buying political ads.


---

Mr Hangman posted...

People always make this case about corporations, but it was about a PAC, Citizens United

Yes because the ruling applys to corporations dude. Theyre not just making up shit to be alarmed about and literally everyone from regular people on up to the fucking President recognizes that. Obama was very outspoken on it when it happened, and he wasnt talking about PACs.

And fact of the matter is, what CU did wasnt just a mere ad. You obviously dont even know what the case is about nor the events that led up to the legal battle.

You already exposed your ignorance. Just stop.

---

CommonJoe posted...

You already exposed your ignorance. Just stop

---

Mr Hangman posted...

What a surprise, you're in favor of using the government to silence opposing political speech, and you want to silence me for my opposing opinion.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

I'm not running some faux victimization scheme

Mr Hangman posted...

you want to silence me for my opposing opinion.

---

https://www.cc.com/video/3pwzi5/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-colbert-super-pac-not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert

---

Mr Hangman posted...

But I haven't been silenced, have I? Fortunately, you don't have that power. And, fortunately, the government doesn't have that power over PACs.

CommonJoe posted...

You already exposed your ignorance. Just stop.

---

It's funny how the citizens united case never actually established corporations as people but it became a talking point anyway.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It's funny how the citizens united case never actually established corporations as people but it became a talking point anyway.

The idea comes from the argument that corporations should not get the same rights as people because they're not people.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It's funny how the citizens united case never actually established corporations as people but it became a talking point anyway.

Its funny how you manage to breath and type at the same time.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

Corporations are groups of people. Everything the corporation does is done by people in the corporation. It's not some mystical golem of office equipment.

CommonJoe posted...

You already exposed your ignorance. Just stop.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The idea comes from the argument that corporations should not get the same rights as people because they're not people.

No the argument is that associations of citizens are also protected by free speech. Otherwise you're saying the government can shut down media outlets for saying the wrong things, because they aren't people.

CommonJoe posted...

Its funny how you manage to breath and type at the same time.

Not an argument.

Mr Hangman posted...

Corporations are groups of people. Everything the corporation does is done by people in the corporation. It's not some mystical golem of office equipment.

If everyone in a super PAC donated the maximum amount of money legally permissable by an individual they wouldn't even come close to how much money they actually spend today.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

No the argument is that associations of citizens are also protected by free speech. Otherwise you're saying the government can shut down media outlets for saying the wrong things, because they aren't people.

Media outlets are protected by freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. The individuals on their networks, like Mike Lindell, benefit from freedom of speech, not press.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

But that money doesn't go to the candidate or their campaign. That's not a fair comparison. The individual analogy would be if you bought advertisements on TV, online, podcasts, whatever.

See the link I posted above for why this is all bullshit:

https://www.cc.com/video/3pwzi5/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-colbert-super-pac-not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Media outlets are protected by freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. The individuals on their networks, like Mike Lindell, benefit from freedom of speech, not press.

It's freedom of speech, not speakers. Which means associations of citizens.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

It's freedom of speech, not speakers. Which means associations of citizens.

A corporation is not an association of citizens man what the fuck.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

A corporation is not an association of citizens man what the fuck.

I mean who do you think runs them? Dogs? Robots? Aliens?

I wouldnt bother with Bro or Hangman. They lack the capacity for critical thinking.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

I mean who do you think runs them? Dogs? Robots? Aliens?

Everything in the world is run by people so I don't see why that matters. Though there's a few emerging AI-run corporations but that's pretty new stuff.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Everything in the world is run by people so I don't see why that matters.

Because it's an association of citizens.

CommonJoe posted...

I wouldnt bother with Bro or Hangman. They lack the capacity for critical thinking.

Also not an argument.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Also not an argument.

No one said it was.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Because it's an association of citizens.

That concentrates the political and economic power of those citizens into the hands of a handful of individuals (if not a singular individual) who has no obligation to the rest of the citizens and no oversight or possible recourse for unwanted behavior, and who is also free to pursue their own political motives with no input from the rest.

A worker co-op has more of a right to be political than a corporation does.

---

---