You are referring to the recent Hobby Lobby decision and I believe LaSalle is talking about the Citizens United decision which did indeed state that corporations are people. The Citizens United decision has far reaching consequences and is not a minor ruling.
We don't give anything away. It all comes with strings attached. It buys us a lot of influence that comes back in the form of favorable trade agreements, diplomatic support, military base rights, and it keeps the Chinese out.
Citizens United is also a narrowly defined decision. It rules that corporations can use money to promote political candidates or ideas. Otherwise known as free speech. That is something we used to cherish in this country.
Yes, they ruled that corporations are people in certain context, but it does not resend a corporations obligation to it's shareholders. Corporations are still entities but in certain context, they can perform as persons. Shareholders are the primary recipients of a corporations decisions, not the people yet shareholders cannot be held responsible for a corporations social responsibilities.
We cherish it for citizens. Applying it to corporations is complete bullshit. Next they will be allowed the right to vote!
It is cherished but a corporation should not be allowed to speak like it's a person with money as speech. All you are saying is that the more money you have the more freedom you can purchase.
Why not? So in a sense it sounds like risk is socialized but profit is privatized? They can't have it both ways.
But they do. If a corporation dumps a massive grey sludge into the bayou, the people are affected but the shareholders are separate from the offense. Now the corporation can be sued as a person but unless the stock valuation is not affected by the suit, shareholders are released from the burden. I was speaking in principal but shareholders can be held accountable in other ways. If a corporation reports inflated earnings and that was found to be true, shareholders will pay when their stock drops.
It might be a legally narrowly defined decision but it's ramifications have had far reaching consequences. It basically opened the floodgates to money in politics, something I think we all agree is not good. That said, it is easy to try and define this as a free speech issue but because it deals with money what you are essentially saying is that your free speech is equal to your bank account. So Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers or George Soros have more "free speech" than you or I. That is my problem with Citizens United. It is not a free speech issue, it's a money issue. Capitalism allows everyone the chance to chase their dream and become as rich as they can. However, our democracy demands that all voices be equal, amounting to one vote per person and nothing more. People have always been allowed to make financial contributions to campaigns but the amounts were limited so that more "voices" could be heard. Citizens United erased all of that and it will continue to be an impediment to our democracy until it is fixed.
