Skip to main content

Waste Management for the Senate!

.
Something there is that makes equating human beings--persons--with corporations absurd.

A corporation is legal definition that is intended to protect the people who work for a corporation generally not liable for corporate actions.  Without that buffer, debts incurred by the legal entity would be the responsibility of the people who work for the corporation.  A bad investment, a terrible accelerator problem, or a financial depression could ruin a lot of innocent people (together with a lot of guilty ones). 

If you invested your life savings in Chrysler Corporation, and the corporation goes bankrupt, you will lose your life savings because you turned them over to the corporation, but you will not lose anything else except your reputation as an investment genius. 

So, in some limited sense, a corporation is defined as a person, legally.  It is responsible for its own actions.  It can go broke.  You can sue it.  The corporation can contribute to the political campaign of Barack Obama, or of Joe Lieberman. 

Somehow, what was intended to be a legal definition of a corporation in order to protect employees and owners of the corporation, has come to mean that corporations can participate in the political process as if they, indeed, were voters; were human beings:  persons!  That is crazy! 

Money is necessary to conduct any political campaign larger than for a school board in a very small town, and even there lots of money used shrewdly is a whole lot better than no money.

Our courts have ruled that to abridge how people spend their money is to limit their freedom of speech,
which is nearly to equate freedom of speech with money.  It does, at least, say that a lot of money is more speech than a few bucks can buy you.  And guess who has a lot of money!  Corporations do!  Not even Warren Buffet is going to outspend Exxon.  (They probably have a lot in common, anyway.) 

Wealthy people can contribute more to political campaigns than people of modest income can.  Insurance companies can contribute more than wealthy people can. 

We have every right, legally, to set limits on how much any person can contribute to political campaigns.  "One man, one vote" suggests that citizens should come to an election with equal importance.  It does not suggest that corporations should be granted a vote, too, even if for reasons of personal liability they are somehow curiously defined as legal persons. 

Let the people who have invested in the corporations contribute!  Let the employees contribute!  Let union members contribute!  Let real people contribute and vote.  But corporations should not be regarded as people, not politically!  Else someday we will elect Waste Management to the Senate.

(Let me think about that.  We may be too late.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Friends-- My step-father of 35 years died this morning. His name was Conrad Royksund. He was 86 years old. He was born into poverty on a farm near Puyallup, WA. He was the first member of his family to attend college and earned a PhD from the University of Chicago. He paid his way through all of that by fishing in Alaska. He spent his professional career as a college professor. I met him when I was just 3 years old and don't actually have any memories of my life befor e he was in it. He was intimidatingly smart, funny as hell, and worked his ass off. He taught me to meet people with kindness and decency until I was certain they could not be trusted. He taught me to meet ideas with carving knives until I was certain they could. I will remember him as one of the bravest, most curious, and funniest people I have ever met. He left this world with a satisfied mind. We are so grateful. Dan Hubbard
1 comment
Read more

The Sea is Rising

Let us just step back:  two hundred and fifty years ago, or so, the ships of England and Spain had drifted onto a whole new continent, as they saw it, from far north to a savagely cold south; pole to pole, as if there were such things. Millions of people already lived here, some of them still hunters and gatherers; some of them very wealthy, indeed!  Gold and silver stolen from the southern Americas funded Spanish and English dreams. There was land, lots of land, under starry skies above, rich land, and oil and coal and iron ore.  The whole western world learned how to build industries not on simple muscle power, but on steam and oil.  We farmed, too, of course.  All we needed was cheap labor--slave labor from Africa, mostly, so the ships came with slave labor.  Chinese labor built railroad beds where there had been rock cliffs. Europeans, long used to killing each other for good, religious reasons, brought their religious savagery with them. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

That's all we want: fairness! Not more guns and more war! Fairness!

The five police officers who were killed in Dallas are certainly not the officers who killed innocent citizens. There is more than enough tragedy to go around. "What is happening to our country?", Mari asked this morning. I had no answer.  We do have an answer.  We do not want to say it. There are lots of answers, all of them pertinent. We are a racist society, like most human societies. We are a society in the midst of enormous changes-- social, political, economic--and we do not know what to do about it. We are divided unsustainably into absurdly rich, and an enormous number of crumbling middle class families, and poor. We have guns everywhere; military guns, guns just for killing people, cheap guns, heroes carrying guns into churches and supermarkets, idiots who think guns ought to be allowed in bars and schools and ball games and beauty parlors and political rallies. Our political process is almost useless. There are good people in Congress, but there...
Post a Comment
Read more