seems reasonable to me
try this statement on for size:
"only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights. money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."
would you agree?
it's a simple concept, yet a profound one: corporations, invented to extend to individuals the right to pursue commerce within a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members, cannot by virtue of being *something* be entitled to legal *everything*. however, our supreme court, in a bizarre moment of corrupt jurisprudence, had recently granted to corporations legal rights normally reserved by the constitution solely for individuals, and this legal mistake, ostensibly, observing their special status in the first place, in the opinion of many, has tipped the balance of political power in a dangerous direction. the group, "move to amend", in madison, wisconsin, has put the two simple sentences into a resolution to be submitted to redress this glaring wrong.
i, for one, am all for it.
"only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights. money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."
would you agree?
it's a simple concept, yet a profound one: corporations, invented to extend to individuals the right to pursue commerce within a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members, cannot by virtue of being *something* be entitled to legal *everything*. however, our supreme court, in a bizarre moment of corrupt jurisprudence, had recently granted to corporations legal rights normally reserved by the constitution solely for individuals, and this legal mistake, ostensibly, observing their special status in the first place, in the opinion of many, has tipped the balance of political power in a dangerous direction. the group, "move to amend", in madison, wisconsin, has put the two simple sentences into a resolution to be submitted to redress this glaring wrong.
i, for one, am all for it.
posted by kad barma at 5:43 AM
8 Comments:
OK, so you see the sense in not taxing corporations then, given that such taxing is merely a pass-through to the rest of us and is radically regressive?
Well, given that corporations get their income from two sources, (1) selling us goods and services and (2) pixey dust, I am all for taxing the heck out of the pixey dust source of revenue. But, as for goods and services we pay for, I see a corporate tax as a way for Governments to increase taxes on individuals, in a regressive manner, while making it appear that someone else is paying the tax—a sort of slight of hand by the Government.
Regards — Cliff
The way we tax corporations is regressive, yes, but, worse, it's currently counter-productive, as they become incented to do business and show profit elsewhere in order to dodge collection. (See GE's latest goose-egg for one egregious example).
The Europeans have at least recognized that "value added" levies that tax business activity, not profit, are the proper way to induce them to pay when we decide they should pay. The alternative you imply is for us to fund everything via individual income and property taxes, and I think we're all better off sharing the burden (as we do our local real estate levies) with a mix of corporate and personal contribution. Despite "free market" ideals, there is still some logic to taking from those who can afford to pay, regressivity or no.
And, off that subject, I hope you aren't suggesting the right to free speech is somehow "bought" by corporations by (not) paying those taxes...
No, I am saying they pay for the right with their taxes.
But, I am also saying that corporate taxes are just a bureaucratic pass-through, at the end of the day. In the end we are the ones who pay those taxes
Regards — Cliff
I disagree vehemently that our system either awards rights via payments, or withholds them via a lack thereof. The Bill of Rights is not a conditional document, save that its rights are conferred on individual citizens ("we the people") and NOT corporations. Laws that govern corporations cannot be inferred to convey additional privileges that are not explicit within those laws.
I am calling it a feature and not a bug that I can't start a comment and then navigate away for something and come back to my in-tact first draft, at least on my iPad. The thing is, if it is a feature I don't have to get mad. And, I didn't find what I was looking for anyway.
So, given that SCOTUS has ruled, and you are not deterred by being on the same side as our Senior Senator and future US Secretary of State, John F Kerry, if you start collecting signatures for an honest to goodness Constitutional Amendment—because that is what it will take to overcome the SCOTUS opinion—I will run the petition in my neighborhood for you, even thought I think you are wrong.
Here is a place to start.
Regards — Cliff
I'd happily be on the same side as most anyone about this one, from Dubya on down. Two points:
Your link isn't working for one, and for the other you and I both know that Constitutional Amendments are generally only for the most patient and persistent among us. (Our most recent amendment, controlling Congressional pay raises, took from 1789 until 1992 to become enacted, and we're still pending on six more, including federal regulation of child labor, and establishment of equal gender rights, both of which I'd say deserve ratification as well).
I thought the "Gender Rights" thing was self-liquidating and has timed out.
As for the link, I apologize and offer up this one in it's place.
Regards — Cliff
My understanding is that there is still a (legally undecided) ruling by a US district court that the deadline was unconstitutional, and that the supremes haven't bothered to rule on that ruling... Either way, as Tammie Wynette sings, "sometimes it's hard to be a woman".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home