Comments on: Why Supreme Court Overturned McCain-Feingold

By: kris

kris — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:17:11 +0000

late to the party – but I am bemused by the ruling.

Corporations are separate legal entities. That means they are not merely “groups of people” a corporation is the body corporate.

My understanding of the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Founders intended natural law rights to be entrenched.

Natural law relates to natural people. Human beings – not legal entities. Do corporations also have natural law rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

Here’s the other thing: people set up corporations so they can do business via the corporation – they can take business risk without personal risk. The corporation can go bust – with the shareholder’s/directors risk limited.

To get behind the corporation and get to the directors’ personal assets, you have to make an application to “pierce the corporate veil”.

Is SCOTUS saying there is no longer a “corporate veil” – because – hey, they’re just a “group of people”.

I therefore dissent. (like it matters! ;-D)

By: Jenn of the Jungle

Jenn of the Jungle — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:52:42 +0000

NO John they don’t have to hide it. In fact once people see how much in the pocket of many big corps the leftards are… well it should be interesting.

By: Gawfer

Gawfer — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:42:04 +0000

Indeed, you may be correct, WhoDat. But the elephant in your living room is the fact that the members of the corporation are their by choice. They are not forced into an ideology without control over their own future. That was once referred to as liberty.

I belong to a labor union who frequently contributes to candidates that I do not support. I have found a way to remain a member in good standing without paying into the political action fund. If that were not possible, I would have resigned long ago.

You see, if there is an individual within the corporation that does not subscribe to the corporate philosophy, they have the free will to remove themselves from said corporation.

Thomas’ explanation still stands.

By: WhoDat

WhoDat — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:46:33 +0000

His statement is good in theory - a corporation is a group of beneficial owners. One could argue that this group should be able to speak its mind and act in its own best interest. However, in the real world, a corporation does not represent its owners as effectively as the smaller groups that Justice Thomas referenced. A major cause for this is the inefficient corporate proxy voting system. As many, many , many people have reminded us, it does not facilitate the feedback loop from beneficial owners that is necessary for successful corporate governance. These problems do not exist with groups of 10.

By: Gawfer

Gawfer — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:38:32 +0000

Exactly, John. All this does is level the playing field. Special interests like planned parenthood and organized labor have enjoyed an unfair advantage that is now gone.

Ginsberg is certainly short lived, Rob. Though she’s a screaming liberal, she will likely be replaced with another young screaming liberal.