McConnell: ‘Absurd’ to ban corporations from having same rights as ‘people’

[Galraedia]

Source: Raw Story

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday said that he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban corporations from having the same rights as people because the idea was “absurd.”

Speaking to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, McConnell accused President Barack Obama’s administration of using a “culture of intimidation” to stifle free speech.

Following the remarks, the Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay asked McConnell for his thoughts on a constitutional amendment proposed by Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) to clarify that corporations are not “people” and restore Congress’ ability to limit corporate influence in elections.

“Well you have to give them some points for not hiding it,” McConnell quipped. “They are uncomfortable with corporate free speech obviously.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/mcconnell-absurd-to-ban-corporations-from-having-same-rights-as-people/

[CincyDem]

1. How about a constitutional amendment that they have...

...the same obligations as people.

You know, the usual stuff. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt pay your taxes. Thou shalt not do all that chit you do that an individual would be jailed for. You know, that stuff.

it's only fair, eh? If you're going to advocate them having all the rights, they should have all the obligations. Otherwise it's like having a system where someone can reap all the rewards without taking any of the risks.

Wait, does that sound familiar ???

[SharonAnn]

42. Yes, there are a few corporations I'd like to execute!

[valerief]

48. And they have to die after 100 years. nt

[Ilsa]

57. Or less. My understanding was that

originally, corporations had to revile their charters every five years and present evidence that their existence was good for the community.

[midnight]

84. Touche! Corporations with same obligations as people!

[daleo]

87. Next war, the Board of Directors can be drafted

Shareholders too.

[Dustlawyer]

2. Why should they " hide it?" You are the one who should feel shame, at least he doesn't

try to hide it. He is a corporate turd who would probable tell you that corporations should openly rule the country, neigh the world!

[siligut]

3. I can only hope The O administration would use a culture of intimidation

But actually it has to do with disbelief at the utter audacity McConnell and his ilk display. McConnell calls expecting persons to act with common decency a "culture of intimidation".

[KamaAina]

4. How about turtles?

[Lasher]

19. Heh heh.

What a succinct way of laying the issue out there.

[Billsmile]

5. McConnell Might Have A Point

Let's ban corporately owned media outlets.

[Initech]

6. If corporations are people, why can't we arrest them like people?

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2013, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

After all in police state America:

- We should have arrested BP for the wanton destruction in the Gulf of Mexico
- We should have arrested HSBC for illegally funding dangerous drug cartels
- We should have arrested KBR for war profiteering and short changing our troops
- We should have arrested Enron and Tyco for robbing employee pensions
- We should have arrested Wells Fargo for illegally foreclosing homes
- We should have arrested Booz Allen for violating the fourth amendment
- We should arrest any number of companies illegally stacking trillions in off shore tax havens

I just thought of these off the top of my head.

[Electric Monk]

12. ++ nt

[davidpdx]

37. When they are convicted demolish their buildings

since you can't physically put them in jail.

[Initech]

53. Better would be to use them as homeless shelters. Solves two problems at once!

[davidpdx]

59. Very good idea

You could convert some of those big corner offices in to several bedrooms.

[Enthusiast]

40. PLUS A BRAZILLION! nt

[truebluegreen]

49. Imo it's the only possible reason to hang on to the death penalty...

Use it on the corporations for their crimes! Start with Monsanto and proceed to the fossil fuel corps...

[wordpix]

52. +10000 I guess they're just too big to jail, according to Turtle

[JW2020]

7. Is he agin' abortions for corporations?

What would that be? a pump and dump?

Fuck you Mitch.

[cstanleytech]

8. I want the long form birth certificate then.

All joking aside if the corporations have "free speech" ok but the anonymous groups being formed by the corporations and the rich need to be stopped...........in other words if a corporation gives 1 million or one dollar to a group the should have to declare it so we all know who is buying the votes of the politicians and what their going rate is.

[tonybgood]

70. What would a birth certificate for a corporation look like?

A corporate charter, signed by various and sundry parties to this enterprise; drawn up by a lawyer. There is the key, A LAWYER! LAWYERS DO NOT CREATE LIFE! If your birth certificate is signed by a doctor, you're a person. If your birth certificate is signed by a lawyer, you are a legal entity, not a person! How difficult is it to figure this out? Corporations do not have free speech rights; ask the tobacco companies about that. No corporation should be allowed to donate to any political candidate. Why? Because they are not people and do not enjoy the same rights under the Constitution!

[Firebrand Gary]

9. I predict.

Within the coming years Mitch McConnell will announce Chevron and Shell are traditional companies and therefore be allowed to marry, thus resulting in receiving many previously restricted rights.

[Half-Century Man]

50. If two companies in the same industry marry...

does it count as an affirmation of gay marriage?

[SamKnause]

10. 'People'

You know that you live in a world that is insane when a 'Supreme Court' declares that corporations are people.

Do corporations have bodies ?
Do they have blood running through their veins ?
Do their hearts stop ?
Can they catch cancer ?
Do corporations come in two genders, or do that have their own distinct gender ?

I don't care how many courts, or how many times it is repeated that corporations are people, they are NOT.

Corporations legally have more rights than living breathing humans.

This is insanity.

I have zero respect for the 'Supreme Court' of the United States.

They are corporate shills, nothing more, nothing less.

[skepticscott]

28. Cite the Supreme Court decision

where the court said "corporations are people" Give the quote.

[AmyStrange]

29. Starting with "Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819)"...

-

FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.

-

[skepticscott]

30. Cite the Supreme Court decision

where the court said "corporations are people". You haven't done it yet.

Or do you not get the very important legal distinction between people (as in individuals) and persons (those enjoying certain rights under the language of the law)?

[cheapdate]

32. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

From the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2009:

"The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations..." (p. 4)

"...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." (p. 5)

By the way, the previous poster was only proposing another perspective for discussion. Your question ("Or do you not get the very important legal distinction between people...&quot was misguided, or do you not understand the difference between a point presented for argument's sake and an argument from personal conviction?

[skepticscott]

39. Citizens United also does not say anywhere

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2013, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)

that "corporations are people", as you apparently realize, since you also failed to show what I maintain doesn't exist. It also never said that "money is speech", despite what a lot of ranters here try to claim, but that's another story.

The "point" of all this is that the Court has NEVER said that corporations are people. It has simply recognized that corporations enjoy SOME of the same rights that individuals do under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, Congress cannot pass laws restricting the freedom of speech. The First Amendment says nothing about who may or may not exercise that right, now does it? Corporations also enjoy the same 4th Amendment protections as individuals (would you prefer they didn't?) as well as the right of freedom to contract.

[cheapdate]

61. It's true that the exact phrasing "corporations are people"

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

or "money is speech" don't appear in the court's written opinion in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and yet both statements are reasonably accurate expressions of the principles upheld in Citizens United, especially the phrase "money is speech" -- which is one of the ideas that the court explicitly upheld in its ruling. Regarding "corporations are people," it might be more accurate to say that the court found that corporations are associations of people no different from any other association -- which is a very dubious proposition.

Maybe a more accurate short summary of the ruling would be to say that "corporate money is speech".

It's trivially unimportant that the exact phrasing doesn't appear in the court's ruling. The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the First Amendment and yet that's a reasonably accurate statement of the principle it contains.

To say as you do that the Citizens United ruling only "...recognized that corporations enjoy SOME of the same rights that individuals do under the Constitution" is not the whole story. The court held that congress may not pass laws that impose limits on how state-chartered limited liability corporations may act to influence public elections.

A corporation is an abstraction; it's legal construction that was originally designed to facilitate human entrepreneurship for the public good. Over time, it has transformed into a largely unaccountable force that has, in some instances, grown larger than entire nations.

In the early years of post-revolution America, corporations remained small institutions, chartered at the state level for specific purposes. They could only exist for a limited time, could not make any political contributions, and could not own stock in other companies. Their owners were responsible for criminal acts committed by the corporation and the doctrine of "limited liability" (shielding investors from responsibility for harm and loss caused by the corporation) did not yet exist. Governments kept a close watch on how these corporations were being run, regularly revoking charters if corporations were not serving the public interest. For example, in 1832, President Andrew Jackson refused to extend the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and the State of Pennsylvania revoked 10 banks’ charters.

Corporations slowly gained power for the next almost 200 years until we're where we're at today. Corporations are the dominant institution in society. Their power extends freely across national borders. The astounding rise of trans-national corporations allows them to ignore local laws and customs. Almost all of our traditionally important civil institutions are now subservient to them. The doctrine of limited liability is now accepted nation-wide and it has effectively rendered large corporations unaccountable. Charters are almost never revoked and any requirement for corporations to act for the public good was abandoned long ago.

Thomas Jefferson once noted that representative government's purpose was to "curb the excesses of the monied interests." Had he or the founders realized how powerful corporations would become, they likely would have created checks on their power.

[skepticscott]

66. Sorry, not even close to accurate

A truly accurate summation of the opinion (one hardly anyone on this site seems to be able to get their brains around) would be "The ability to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages, and a restriction on the former is a de facto (and unconstitutional) restriction on the latter". Sorry that it isn't reducible to a snarky catch phrase that can be easily mocked, but that does encompass the core of the opinion.

And tell me please, how you extrapolate from the First Amendment a "reasonably accurate statement" of the principle you're promoting here. It says that Congress may not restrict the freedom of speech, and in no way limits the exercise of protected speech (and political speech in particular) or other forms of expression to individuals, any more than the freedom of the press clause does (do you seriously believe that the freedom of the press clause should NOT apply to corporations?).

[wilt the stilt]

71. I'm not a lawyer

and I don't think you are one either. I do work with some brilliant legal minds and personally I think your performing mental masturbation.

[skepticscott]

80. Do you have anything to back up your snark

or is that all it is? One does not have to be a lawyer to understand and interpret legal reasoning. In this case, it's really not that complex, it just gets a lot of people here tied up in knots because they think that undesirable consequences must by necessity mean that a court decision is an incorrect one legally (another demonstrable untruth).

[wilt the stilt]

88. well why don't you go practice.

use your "lawyer logic" and see how far that get's you in court. I'm waiting.

[skepticscott]

90. I see that your answer is "no"

You have nothing to back up your snark but more of the same. And even lamer this time.

But thanks for playing. We'll have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[wilt the stilt]

94. You are the "smartest" kid in the room

yes you are. That is what you are trying to prove and you won. You are the smartest. Your lawyerese would get you know where in the court of law. Your arguments are an exercise in BS. It may not be stated as you would like it to be stated but follow how the law is applied and that is all that matters.

[AmyStrange]

72. It's a good question...

-

and thank you for sharing Scott,

but unfortunately what you ask ("Where does it state, corporations are people?&quot is not a good legal question, because the courts aren't interested in whether corporations are people, but rather whether they should be afforded the same rights as any citizen of the United States. Deciding whether corporations are people of the world is not a legal question, but deciding if they can be considered citizens of the US, IS a legal question. Being a citizen is a legal status, while being people is not.

I'm not saying what you ask isn't a legitimate question. As a matter of fact, it's a very good question, but legal people don't talk like average everyday people like us do. In legal parlance, citizen doesn't mean people, because people doesn't have the legally narrowed scope that citizen does. Legal language has to be more precise than everyday language.

In short, you have to use legal words with narrow legal interpretations when working with the courts or arguing legal issues in the courts.

For example, you can't go into court and plead "Innocent" (although that's what you mean) you have to use the legally acceptable term, "Not Guilty" instead.

Now personally, I think you are arguing with the wrong people. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you. We are trying to answer your question the best we can, but the court can't decide that corporations are people, because that would mean they are reaching beyond the legal borders of the United States, and they can only decide if a corporation is a citizen and whether they can be afforded the rights of a citizen. Citizen means, in (rough) legal talk, we the people of the United States. Not, we the people of the world.

Hope this makes sense,

d

-

[skepticscott]

79. Frankly, it wasn't intended to be a "good legal question"

If you'll look just above, you'll see that it was intended to point out the dishonesty of claims in post #10:

You know that you live in a world that is insane when a 'Supreme Court' declares that corporations are people.

I don't care how many courts, or how many times it is repeated that corporations are people, they are NOT.

Those claims are blatantly false, despite their being repeated on this site in more threads than I can count. It's pretty difficult to discuss that decision and its implications when people are constantly basing their arguments on demonstrable falsehoods.

And you are also missing the legal distinction between "people" and "persons".

[AmyStrange]

86. Gotcha...

-

I see your point Scott,

and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding,

d

-

[cheapdate]

91. As I said earlier

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

The court held that limited liability corporations are nothing more than "associations of citizens" the same as any other. I said earlier that I believe this is a very dubious proposition, but in truth, I believe it borders on preposterous. A corporation is no ordinary "association of citizens," it's a legal construction granted recognition by the state. And it's my opinion that the state may pass laws that impose regular limits on how corporations may act to influence elections.

The First Amendment applies to "the people" and not to abstract, legal constructions known as a corporations. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said it better:

"...corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

- Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010

Of all the important issues we face, I come back time and time again to the conclusion that the most important issue of them all is that the stranglehold that corporate power has over our government and public institutions must be broken.

[wtmusic]

89. Corporations don't "enjoy" anything. They aren't "free" either.

Corporations are inanimate legal entities which give certain rights to their shareholders and protect them from certain liabilities.

The problem with Citizens United is it allows corporate directors to use corporate treasury funds for direct advocacy. This can, and does, become a manipulative aggregation of the people's will. The state has no means of ensuring that the shareholders of the company are being properly represented, and thus it opens the door to a process which contradicts democratic principles. With adequate enforcement of antitrust it wouldn't be an issue, but it's doubtful under our current environment of runaway corporatism any populist effort at reanimating the Sherman Act could gain enough steam.

Should corporations be allowed to vote? The answer seems obvious, but there's also nothing in the Constitution restricting that right, and in fact many of the arguments of Citizens United would serve equally well arguing in favor of corporate voting.

"Corporations are People". As you say, it's sort of a crude catchphrase but when corporations are treated as people they wield tremendous power - far more than any individual, and in the opinion of many, quite unfairly.

[onehandle]

11. McConnell is not a human.

Please ban his 'rights.'

[ZRT2209]

13. What does God have to say about it?

[SoapBox]

14. Fuck off asshole.

This POS makes me want to vomit.

[phantom power]

15. Hey Joe, what was your first clue?

You're fucking right I don't approve of "corporate free speech" and "corporate human rights."

[L0oniX]

16. Hey Mr Dumbfuck ...go fuck yourself with a Enron flag pole. We need an amendment banning morons...

from office.

[Brigid]

22. We have our winner.

"Go fuck yourself with an Enron flagpole."

[Initech]

23. And Mitch McConnell is one of the biggest dumbfucks to ever serve Congress.

[A Simple Game]

17. It makes perfect sense, they have to have some place to put all of the

rights they want to take away from women.

[cantbeserious]

18. Duh - What Else Did You Expect Him To Say - He Is Bought Lock, Stock And Barrel By The Oligarchs

eom

[indepat]

20. Absurd that large, profitable corporations should pay a lower Federal income tax rate than the

middle class.

[sulphurdunn]

21. People have rights considered unalieanable

Corporations only have legal rights granted by people that people do not have. Therefore, corporations are not people.

[TexasTowelie]

24. In that case, corporations shouldn't be able to sign any legal contracts until they are at least 18.

After all, we have to protect the children!

[They_Live]

73. haha. I like that!

I always think of the "can they be hanged by the neck?" example, but i really like this idea that they have to become adults before they have any rights. They'll also need to sign up for selective service.

[Thor_MN]

25. Mitch, Mitch, Mitch. People are limited in how much they can donate to a political campaign...

Corporation already have more rights than a person, and you want MORE? Sit down and shut the fuck up.

[retired rooster]

26. Has Mitch always been such and a-hole or...

has it just been in the last few decades?

[Blue Owl]

27. Prehistoric Man-Turtle Emerges From Shell, Vomits Up Pile of Bullshit

n/t

[sakabatou]

31. +1

[Uncle Joe]

33. Mitch, you're a sick piece of shit in dire need of counseling.

You would create an artificial layer of royalty to rule over the American People, Princes, Dukes, and Barons coming between the people and their elected government.

I can't imagine you would have ever fought for the American Patriots during the Revolution, Benedict Arnold had nothing on you, at least he switched sides, you would tear down our democratic republic from within.

Thanks for the thread, Galraedia.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

34. Would they still be able to marry?

I mean merger, of course... but not the other kinda people, right?

_|_

[Octafish]

35. ' Corporate Free Speech'

Has a nice ring to it.

[William Seger]

36. Point is: The people who own corporations already have the same rights

... as other people, and in fact generally have more influence on politics than less wealthy people. Giving extra rights to influence elections to the enterprises they engage in to create more wealth for themselves is an insult to the concept of democracy.

[davidpdx]

38. I don't know why this should be so surprising

After all we are talking about Mitch "the rich" McConnell

[alp227]

41. At least the "corporations are people my friend" candidate lost.

[gtar100]

43. The Stupidity Index in this country rises every time McConnell opens his mouth and speaks.

It'll be a great day when we no longer have to endure his bleating in the media. Unfortunately, the US is stocked with plenty of other blowhards willing to do the bidding of the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

[hughee99]

44. If only they did.

The government seems to be violating "people's" rights on a regular basis. Can you imagine the government treating business like that, too?

[The Second Stone]

45. How about people have the same rights as corporations?

Huh?

[wordpix]

74. excellent, someone should try that out under the Equal Protection Clause

Bring a case right to the Supremes. But they're as much a dead end as Turtle.

[ross3000]

46. Corporate personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Supreme Court did not rule that Corporations are people in the

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886
The concept was stated not by the Supreme Court but by the heading attached to it by the Court Clerk.

subsequent decisions apparently have built from that false premise... so the precedent is well entrenched.

a constitutional amendment could undo the sloppiness of the 14th amendment
and could go further by also undoing the Citizens United decision.

some commentators have indicated that there may be ways short of a constitutional amendment to undo citizens united.

I say---
I'll accept that corporations are persons when one of them is executed by Texas

ross3000

[DallasNE]

47. Surely McConnell Meant "'Absurd' To Ban People From Having The same Rights As 'Corporations'"

Many corporations are exempt from liability when their crap harms people. It is wrong for corporations to even be able to "donate" their funds to candidates because it comes out of the pockets of all stockholders. Yes, allow the corporate employees to donate as individuals (as is the case today), require disclosure of all large contributions and remove the IRS from having to determine what is political speech vs what are issue adds by going by the "exclusive" language of the law that bans both. Yes, that means that Unions could not use their dues for donations to candidates although manpower for GOTV, etc. would still be permitted. Corporations also have access to the courts that people don't have so level that playing field too. Yes, equalize the bankruptcy laws while we are at it too. People could gain a lot by having the same rights as corporations. That is why corporations are dead set against this.

[wordpix]

51. I think it's absurd the Turtle is still in Congress after all these years

What has he ever done for the people? I can't think of one thing.

[RC]

54. The United States is the only country in the world that give corporations the right of persons.

[silvershadow]

55. All of these people (McConnell, Romney, Scalia et al) are absolutely brain damaged if they can't

even distinguish between a human being and a non-breathing, artificial legal entity created by and for the convenience of men. They are treating them as if they were a corporal being. I just don't know what else to say about it, it is clear as day they are not. Never have been. Never will be. This was discussed early on by the founders and others as the nation was developing and the corporations came to real prominence. I continue to shake my head. This is but one reason alone that I believe Scalia should be impeached (well, for a proper reason, not trying to pick the scab off an old wound- you had to be there). But this is one of myreasons to impeach him. The actual charges could be any which might apply and which could conceivably stick. We have to, have tocorrect these rulings ASAP, or the country you know and love will be no more. We are in real trouble here, folks. We are the frogs in the pot of boiling water.

[nikto]

56. If Corporations are people...

They should have a gender, and you should be able to date one, or even have sex with one.

Personally, I am attracted to EXXON. I sense she is a woman--A woman of great power,
but a woman nonetheless, with needs and desires to be fullfilled.

If I could ever get a date with EXXON, I feel certain she would like me a lot,
maybe even be attracted to me and fall in love with me.

And then we would become passionate, intimate lovers.

I could satisfy EXXON, and make her happy. I just know it.
She would be The Happiest Woman Corporation in the world.

I would never cheat on her, or do anything to hurt her, ever.
It would be a relationship based on total trust and communication,
as well as intense attraction.


Why won't EXXON go out with me?

[wordpix]

75. Apparently, Exxon is a golddigger or in this case, an oildigger & you're not a rich enough find

for her. Better find the mother lode if you want to date her.

[City Lights]

58. McConnell is absurd.

If they have the same rights as people they should have the same punishments, and I've yet to see one land its fat ass in jail.

[Ash_F]

60. OK and when they commit a crime, their management should go to jail.

As warning to their underlings who should be bumped up to replace them.

[certainot]

62. he's protecting his own- if they ban corporations, pretty soon they could be banning turtles...

[delrem]

63. That's yesterday's battle. Like always, the right wing totally won.

[BlueMTexpat]

64. Ah McConnell, if only you actually

had a clue what you are talking about!

All too many of the most powerful US corporations are "drones," per Robert Monks, who does know what he is talking about.

http://www3.gmiratings.com/home/2013/06/the-washington-post-the-drone-corporation/

... Drone corporations are having a deep and detrimental impact on our country. Not only are they more likely to avoid taxes, pay CEOs more, and have CEOs who also lead the board, but they also are twice as likely to have eliminated or frozen pension plans since 2005. Even more disturbingly, they pay more in fines and settlements for corporate crime, negligence and accidents. In the past 20 years, drone companies accounted for almost 85 percent of the total amount paid, or more than $80 billion.
...
But corporations are not citizens. They are creatures of law, of government and of human manufacture. Such “creatures” should not have power over their creators or negatively impact their creators. Corporations with unchecked force are a danger, and right now they—and the very few executives who run them—have far too much power over our society.

[navarth]

65. Also absurd to have a Turtle-Face ASSHOLE as a Senator.

My sympathies to the good people in Kentucky that didn't vote for this jerk.

[rrneck]

67. If they're people when can we draft 'em? nt

[indypaul]

68. A simple reading of the

Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Constitution leads
one to understand that corporations are NOT in any way, shape or form
people. How the Supreme Court can endow corporations with any
constitutional rights is beyond any understanding of "We the People" or
"endowed by their Creator." There are NO signatories of either document
that are corporate entities which are creatures of the state whose rights
are extended to them only from the state. To contract. sue and be sued
nothing else.

[Gman]

69. The way he used the word "absurd" demonstrates

that there truly is an alternate reality that the RW lives in and that McConnell is fully immersed in it.

[Politicalboi]

76. So can we marry a corporation?

I'm a lesbian, so I can't possibly get married legally to someone I want, so why not a corporation? "Hey, I like your buildings, I like how the doors open up when they see me coming". "You have very pretty windows too" XOXOXO

[LiberalLovinLug]

77. "corporate free speech"

That is an absurd statement.

[Frustratedlady]

78. I think this is discrimination. What about partnerships?

Small potatoes? Mom and Pop businesses. Small service industries. Of course, a lot of those are run by women, so they wouldn't count. Farms? Those can be corporations, but are usually limited corps or partnerships. We wouldn't want family operations to be counted.

Do corporations eat, poop, bleed, get the flu?

I have never understood how the SCOTUS ever voted that corporations were people. That was when they first got my attention. How ridiculous could they be?

[Berlum]

81. Why do Republicans HATE human beings and America?

[Deep13]

82. Seriously?!

Why should they have the same rights?

And if they do, should they not also have the same responsibilities? Major shareholders should register for selective service as corporate owners. Vulture capitalism should be prosecuted as murder--probably confiscate the assets or jail the CEO. Not sure how jury service will work.

And what about the emotional inhibitions that keep the rest of us in line. Without love and guilt, are they not psychopathic? Perhaps they need to be involuntarily committed for the safety of the public.

[Nye Bevan]

83. Should DemocraticUnderground LLC have First and Fourth Amendment rights?

Or should it be constitutional to restrict what content can appear on DU and for the police to search DU's offices and seize its corporate-owned property for no reason?

[ZombieHorde]

92. On some level, I agree with him.

I don't like corporate money in politics, but I do think corporations should have some constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment. I don't think a corporation should be allowed to be searched without a warrant.

I would definitely support an Amendment that says only individuals can donate to political causes.

[47of74]

93. Fuck you, Mitch McConnell

[lastlib]

95. Turtle McConnell knows who his masters are....

...Fuckwad....