Corporation To Run For Public Office!
Bill
Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal
campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying corporation in the
Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S. Congress in the Republican
primary in Maryland's 8th Congressional District....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html
Bill
( "It's our democracy," Murray Hill Inc. says, "We bought it, we paid for
it, and we're going to keep it.")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA
Canuck57
That will be the next step, get bakers and corrupt corporations to sit
in the senate and congress....
But it isn't like that isn't already true.
Mike Hunter
recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People," who can
be sued in the courts.
The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning their
"RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
If you study election law you will discover only an "individual" can seek
elective office.
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7sn7i0...@mid.individual.net...
Mike Hunter
government? LOL
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7sn7u5...@mid.individual.net...
Mrs Irish Mike
> You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I
> recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People," who can
> be sued in the courts.
>
Mike Hunter
historical record, WBMA.
One can READ the Courts opinion on the net, that sites the "corporations are
People," in the majority ruling. It is also mentioned in the minority
opinion.
One thing is for sure, BO nor the New York Times Editors, apparently did NOT
read the opinion that came down from the court or he and they would not have
made that goofy assertion that FOREIGN corporations can now spend money in
US elections.
The law forbidding foreigners from participating in US elections is still in
effect. That fact is listed in the majority opinion, as well.
I just made a quick search found this, from the Law Review, in less than two
minutes:
"President Barack Obama and other critics say the court's decision to let
corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the
floodgates to foreign involvement. In last week's address to Congress and
the nation, Obama asserted that the court had allowed special interests,
"including foreign corporations, to spend without limit on our elections."
That was a step too far, foreign corporations may NOT spend any money in
U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was UNTOUCHED
by the high court.
"Mrs Irish Mike" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0c63d001-db62-4976...@v37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
krw
wrote:
>You are wrong, do some homework before you chose to comment, search the
>historical record, WBMA.
>
>One can READ the Courts opinion on the net, that sites the "corporations are
>People," in the majority ruling. It is also mentioned in the minority
>opinion.
>
>One thing is for sure, BO nor the New York Times Editors, apparently did NOT
>read the opinion that came down from the court or he and they would not have
>made that goofy assertion that FOREIGN corporations can now spend money in
>US elections.
It's even sillier than that. US corporations still cannot directly
support politicians. They can express an opinion, even if they aren't
a "news organization". Free speech for others than the media, fancy
that.
<snip>
Paul
We are a government of lawyers, by lawyers, and for lawyers.
Bill
U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies or American corporations that are
controlled by foreign investors..."
Above from...
High Court Allows Foreign Campaign Finance...
http://globaleconomy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/30/high-court-allows-foreign-campaign-finance/
Bill
> We are a government of lawyers, by lawyers, and for lawyers.
>
NO, no, no!
We are a government of the Exxons, by the General Motors, and for the
Duponts! (Ralph Nader)
Mike Hunter
Paul
LOL
Who runs the United States and everything in it?
Lawyers.
Mike Hunter
FOREIGN Corporations.
I.E. A first year law student would easily discover that although Toyota
has holding companies, incorporated in various states in the US, the Toyota
CORPORATION is Japanese and thus excludes the holding companies from
supporting candidates for ANY elected office, period.
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7sp95q...@mid.individual.net...
Gordon Burditt
>"RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
I'd like to suggest that policical campaign contributions be taxable,
by all taxes applicable to the region or any part of it voting for
that office. This would include individual income tax, corporate
income tax, sales tax (for national elections, the sales tax of all
50 states), inheritance tax, property tax, all those odd taxes you
see on your phone bill, the SEC tax on stock trading, Social Security
taxes, Obama's health care tax if and when it becomes effective,
gasoline tax, etc.
hls
"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:AuOdnTnwpOl56PrW...@posted.internetamerica...
The latest ruling that opens the gate for company "donations" to
political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy
interest groups) to BUY congress.
Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but
this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
krw
>
>"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
>news:AuOdnTnwpOl56PrW...@posted.internetamerica...
>> >The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning
>> >their
>>>"RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
>>
>> I'd like to suggest that policical campaign contributions be taxable,
>> by all taxes applicable to the region or any part of it voting for
>> that office. This would include individual income tax, corporate
>> income tax, sales tax (for national elections, the sales tax of all
>> 50 states), inheritance tax, property tax, all those odd taxes you
>> see on your phone bill, the SEC tax on stock trading, Social Security
>> taxes, Obama's health care tax if and when it becomes effective,
>> gasoline tax, etc.
>
>The latest ruling that opens the gate for company "donations" to
>political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy
>interest groups) to BUY congress.
Bullshit. You really should learn something before spouting such
nonsense.
>Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but
>this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
Ditto.
Mike Hunter
"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:AuOdnTnwpOl56PrW...@posted.internetamerica...
Canuck57
Sad, but tue.
People need to learn to forget if they are repulican, democrat or
independent and vote for the one that isn't a scum bag lawyer.
Mike Hunter
;)
"Paul" <P...@main.com> wrote in message
news:hk7s3b$ofl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
hls
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>>political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy
>>interest groups) to BUY congress.
>
> Bullshit. You really should learn something before spouting such
> nonsense.
>
>>Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but
>>this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
>
> Ditto.
I dont need to learn anything about this bill, and I cant believe you
would respond in such an ignorant way. Now businesses can
donate to campaigns at essentially unregulated levels..
If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
Canuck57
You have to look at it this way.
$5000 to each of 400 representatives is only $2 million. Since
government can taint the process to one companies favor or another, well
- cheap buy.
Say I was evil ultra-mega super rich and had $10 billion in one of the
failing banks. I would gladly pay $2 million to assure my $10 billion
was safe. Now say you have "connections" or some control to 25
corporations, and it is tax deductable. 26 * 5k * 400 is a lot of bribe
moneys. Right under the radar too.
You know the $10 billion is safe. I am sure Obama has his reasons he
cares not to discuss to us why some banks got help and others did not.
Canuck57
fellow rats pounced?
krw
Wrong. They cannot donate to campaigns at all. They may state their
opinions, but not give one thin dime to a candidate.
>If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to
Obama, not reality.
Les Cargill
Yeah, but this is like saying "Who runs the nuclear
aircraft carriers?. Nuclear engineers."
Y'know?
--
Les Cargill
Bill
> opinions, but not give one thin dime to a candidate.
>
But they can spend millions on TV commercials is my understanding. Same
thing the candidate would do with the money.
And if you can trash an opponent, true or not, this can influence an
election as people get their information from TV these days.
I recall that Nixon won an early election (not for President) by trashing
his opponent with untruths... (Detailed in one of the biographies on Nixon -
A book - Not on TV.)
hls
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>
> Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to
> Obama, not reality.
This is the decision of the Court.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of political
action committees. It IS couched in terms of free speech and
communication, and frees organized to spend in these areas - in
other words to get the candidate of advantage by the juridical
"person" elected.
I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.
Bill
certificate, passport, and register to vote!
(Someone with a corporation, register the corporation to vote, then let's
see the Supreme Court say they can't do that because a corporation is NOT a
person!)
Rod Speed
>> They cannot donate to campaigns at all. They may state their opinions, but not give one thin dime to a candidate.
> But they can spend millions on TV commercials is my understanding.
Correct.
> Same thing the candidate would do with the money.
Nope, its much less likely to be properly coordinated with them doing their own commercials.
> And if you can trash an opponent, true or not, this can influence an election as people get their information from TV
> these days.
But arent necessarily stupid enough to believe
everything they see in an election TV commercial.
> I recall that Nixon won an early election (not for President) by trashing his opponent with untruths... (Detailed in
> one of the biographies on Nixon - A book - Not on TV.)
Yes, those who wrote the consitution did not allow for that.
If you dont like that, amend the constitution again.
ALL the supremes said was that the CURRENT constitutional amendment
prevents the govt from controlling how corps advertise on TV.
Rod Speed
Of course it is, and if you dont like that, campaign to amend the constitution.
Corse you will have to do that in the face of corporate TV advertising opposing that.
If you dont like that, blame those who wrote that constitutional amendment that did not have
the forsight to predict that downside of their very swingeing wording they chose to have.
But hard to lynch a corps now tho.
Rod Speed
> If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get a birth certificate, passport, and register to
> vote!
Nope, you cant get birth certificates for corps.
> (Someone with a corporation, register the corporation to vote, then
> let's see the Supreme Court say they can't do that because a
> corporation is NOT a person!)
You wont even get the birth certificate.
hls
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7src45...@mid.individual.net...
We, the lowly citizens, cant even get our elected officials to look at term
limits, real
campaign finance reform, etc.
And, no, I dont like the fact that our government is effectively steered by
lobbyists
representing big money groups.
We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that the
intent for
government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
It is all about money and power.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> hls wrote
>>> krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote
>>>>> If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
>>>> Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to Obama, not reality.
>>> This is the decision of the Court.
>>> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
>>> It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of
>>> political action committees. It IS couched in terms of free speech
>>> and communication, and frees organized to spend in these areas - in
>>> other words to get the candidate of advantage by the juridical
>>> "person" elected.
>>> I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.
>> Of course it is, and if you dont like that, campaign to amend the constitution.
>> Corse you will have to do that in the face of corporate TV advertising opposing that.
>> If you dont like that, blame those who wrote that constitutional amendment that did not have the forsight to predict
>> that downside of their very swingeing wording they chose to have.
>> Bit hard to lynch a corpse now tho.
> We, the lowly citizens, cant even get our elected officials to look at term limits, real campaign finance reform, etc.
Hardly surprising given that they are dug in now.
> And, no, I dont like the fact that our government is effectively
> steered by lobbyists representing big money groups.
Blame that on the farts that wrote the constitution.
> We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that
> the intent for government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
> It is all about money and power.
Then set fire to yourself outside Congress or sumfin.
hls
>
> Then set fire to yourself outside Congress or sumfin.
>
>
krw
<billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get a birth
>certificate, passport, and register to vote!
A corporation certainly does have a "birth certificate".
>(Someone with a corporation, register the corporation to vote, then let's
>see the Supreme Court say they can't do that because a corporation is NOT a
>person!)
It is by law person. It can be sued in both criminal and civil court.
krw
So you admit to being a liar?
Bob F
> Was he referring to the government Unions, the ones who REALLY own the
> government? LOL
>
Are you serious???? That's just idiotic.
krw
You mean corporations are *forcing* you to vote for their politicians?
You know, corporations cannot vote, so someone is voting them into
office.
>And, no, I dont like the fact that our government is effectively steered by
>lobbyists
>representing big money groups.
You don't like the likes of the Sierra Club either then?
>We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that the
>intent for
>government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
>It is all about money and power.
Of course it is. Use yours and stop whining.
Bob F
> On Feb 1, 9:02 am, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
>> You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I
>> recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People,"
>> who can be sued in the courts.
>>
> Link or lie? I say urban legend.
Not even that. Pure fantasy.
Bob F
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:53:46 -0600, "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>>
>> "krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>>>> The latest ruling that opens the gate for company "donations" to
>>>> political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy
>>>> interest groups) to BUY congress.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. You really should learn something before spouting such
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>>> Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but
>>>> this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> I dont need to learn anything about this bill, and I cant believe you
>> would respond in such an ignorant way. Now businesses can
>> donate to campaigns at essentially unregulated levels..
>
> Wrong. They cannot donate to campaigns at all. They may state their
> opinions, but not give one thin dime to a candidate.
Right. Thay cannot donate to campaigns. But they can run all the ads they want
for or against any cantidate, at any expanse. Which gives them the same undue
influence.
Jomo
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:40:10 -0800, "Bill"
> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get a
>> birth certificate, passport, and register to vote!
> A corporation certainly does have a "birth certificate".''
Not one that is any use to get to vote with.
Canuck57
And political and economic favors. Say an inside tip on a stock or hey
my cousin from Harvard needs a good start...is VP good enough?
Canuck57
Hey, they did pretty good really, better than most other countries. But
given liberalism and the corrupt time they will always run anything down
to decay unless the people are hard nosed about it.
I say hard nosed, as someone needs to publically tell Obama his
corruption and mamoth debt spend is screwing people. And call him a
corrupt prick.
>> We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that
>> the intent for government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
>
>> It is all about money and power.
>
> Then set fire to yourself outside Congress or sumfin.
I hope he does not.
Canuck57
In a way yes. Say I have the republican AND the democrat would be
president in my pocket. Have squeeze on his corruption and pay them lots.
Going into an eletion, how mny people have voted but not voted for a
democrat or republican? That is vote without the two parties in mind?
>> And, no, I dont like the fact that our government is effectively steered by
>> lobbyists
>> representing big money groups.
>
> You don't like the likes of the Sierra Club either then?
>
>> We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that the
>> intent for
>> government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
>
>> It is all about money and power.
>
> Of course it is. Use yours and stop whining.
He is right, follow the money and power. The rest is bullshit for the
naive.
Mike Hunter
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7R3an.50672$kQ5....@newsfe08.iad...
edspyhill01
> Jus WHO IS this naive, to whom you are referring? ;)
>
This?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur...
William KleinPolitical strategist, writer, humorist in Washington,
D.C.
Posted: January 26, 2010 08:45 PM
Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation To Run for Congress:First Test
of "Corporate Personhood" In Politics
I've agreed to serve as campaign manager for the first "corporate
person" to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.
Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of
federal campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying
corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S.
Congress in the Republican primary in Maryland's 8th Congressional
District. You can see our first campaign video on YouTube and follow
us on Facebook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA
Until now,corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions
and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But
thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now multinational
corporations
can eliminate the middle-man and run for office themselves.
Finally, the vision of the novelist Ralph Nader has come to pass--We
are a government of the Exxons, by the General Motors, and for the
Duponts.
Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first "corporate person" to
exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court
observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, "If anything, the
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred
new dignity on corporate "persons," treating them -- under the First
Amendment free-speech clause -- as the equal of human beings."
Murray Hill Inc. agrees. "The strength of America," Murray Hill Inc.
says, "is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America's
great corporations. We're saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not
you, who? If not now, when?"
Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending top dollar to protect its
investment. "It's our democracy," Murray Hill Inc. says, "We bought
it, we paid for it, and we're going to keep it."
The campaign's designated human, Eric Hensal, will help the
corporation conform to antiquated "human only" procedures and sign
the
necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is
excited by this new opportunity. "We want to get in on the ground
floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by
China," he says.
I plan on running an aggressive, historic campaign that "puts people
second" or even third, employing social media, automated robo-calls,
"Astroturf" lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the
vote.
Rod Speed
True. My main objection is to their objection to standing
armys and its easy to see why they went that way with that.
And they didnt do anything about slavery, and easy to see
why they decided that that wasnt feasible at that time too.
> better than most other countries.
Which isnt a bad effort considering that it was one of the first.
> But given liberalism and the corrupt time they will always run
> anything down to decay unless the people are hard nosed about it.
And even when they are, that isnt necessarily enough.
> I say hard nosed, as someone needs to publically tell Obama his corruption and mamoth debt spend is screwing people.
> And call him a corrupt prick.
Yes, the provision on free speech is certainly one of the most important rights.
Also not surprising given the history in western europe at that time.
>>> We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that
>>> the intent for government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
>>> It is all about money and power.
>> Then set fire to yourself outside Congress or sumfin.
> I hope he does not.
Its the only possibility for getting anything done about either.
And the farts that wrote the constitution were the epitomy of money and power at that time too.
krw
>krw wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:40:10 -0800, "Bill"
>> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get a
>>> birth certificate, passport, and register to vote!
>
>> A corporation certainly does have a "birth certificate".''
>
>Not one that is any use to get to vote with.
...and?
Jomo
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:42:24 +1100, "Jomo" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:40:10 -0800, "Bill"
>>> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get
>>>> a birth certificate, passport, and register to vote!
>>
>>> A corporation certainly does have a "birth certificate".''
>>
>> Not one that is any use to get to vote with.
>
> ...and?
That was what was being discussed, corps getting to vote.
Mike Hunter
both criminal and civil court, has now ruled they MUST therefore have the
freedom of political speech guaranteed in the Constitution to every
American.
IF the people do not agree corporations are people than they must amend the
Constitution. IF that happens Corporations will no longer BE "persons," who
can be sued in both criminal and civil court.
Can you imagine the shark lawyers, that control the Senate, ever allowing
that amendment to ever be introduced let alone be passed by the Congress?
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:vquhm5l5b3khqomhd...@4ax.com...
Rod Speed
> The same Court that ruled corporations were "persons," who can be sued in both criminal and civil court, has now ruled
> they MUST therefore have the freedom of political speech guaranteed in the Constitution to every American.
There is no therefore, the most recent ruling has nothing to do with that earlier one.
It is in fact based on the NO LAW bit of the First.
> IF the people do not agree corporations are people than they must
> amend the Constitution. IF that happens Corporations will no longer
> BE "persons," who can be sued in both criminal and civil court.
That is wrong too. There is for example no reason why
the constitution could not be explicitly amended to allow
corps to be sued in both criminal and civil courts.
> Can you imagine the shark lawyers, that control the Senate, ever allowing that amendment to ever be introduced let
> alone be passed by the Congress?
It isnt necessarily up to the Senate.
Mike Hunter
;)
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7stsq1...@mid.individual.net...
Rod Speed
> You are entitled to you own opinion,
Taint my opinion, its the supremes' opinion.
krw
wrote:
>The same Court that ruled corporations were "persons," who can be sued in
>both criminal and civil court, has now ruled they MUST therefore have the
>freedom of political speech guaranteed in the Constitution to every
>American.
>
>
>IF the people do not agree corporations are people than they must amend the
>Constitution. IF that happens Corporations will no longer BE "persons," who
>can be sued in both criminal and civil court.
Not to mention being liable for taxes.
>Can you imagine the shark lawyers, that control the Senate, ever allowing
>that amendment to ever be introduced let alone be passed by the Congress?
Can you imagine the states ratifying such?
krw
wrote:
...and the recent SCotUS ruling changes this still illegal activity
how?
hls
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>
> Of course it is. Use yours and stop whining.
I am not whining, you cocksucker
hls
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>
And you admit to being a cocksucker?
hls
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hkacm6$gno$1...@news.eternal-
> Right. Thay cannot donate to campaigns. But they can run all the ads they
> want for or against any cantidate, at any expanse. Which gives them the
> same undue influence.
>
>
>
the greatest
expenditures in a campaign. If companies, or PACs, or other big money
groups
accept that load for a candidate, it is the same as if they had donated the
money
directly.
krw
I rest my case.
krw
Nope. But you most certainly have.
hls
"krw" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
Im sorry. I should not have allowed you to goad me into losing
my temper.
krw
Apparently it's quite an easy thing to do. You should seek help for
that.
jeff
> Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
> Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal
> campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying corporation in the
> Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S. Congress in the Republican
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html
>
Lets really level the playing field for corporations. If they want to
have the same rights as people, lets tax them at the same rate. Ditto
for churches, lets tax that cash cow.
Why stop there, let them be drafted and subject to all the same laws
and punishments as ordinary citizens. Let's get them in for jury duty
too. It's only fair.
Jeff
>