This is powerful. Community bans Corporate 'Personhood'

[flashl]

Challenging Corporate Power: California Community Says Companies Are Not People; Bans Campaign Donations

In 2006, Humboldt County, California, became the latest, and largest, jurisdiction to abolish the legal doctrine known as "corporate personhood."

Measure T was successful because our all-volunteer campaign came together to pass a law that bans non-local corporations from participating in Humboldt elections. The referendum, which passed with 55 percent of the vote, also asserts that corporations cannot claim the First Amendment right to free speech.

By enacting Measure T, Humboldt County has committed an act of "municipal civil disobedience," intentionally challenging "settled law." But voters also recognize that Measure T is an act of common sense. We polled our community and found that 78 percent believe corruption is more likely if corporations participate in politics.

The Measure T campaign was led by women and young people, with critical support from elders and feminist men. This diverse leadership created a culture of cooperation and collaboration that permeated the campaign, and made it as much about community as about a win on election day. For example, the law itself was written using a consensus process, the advice of volunteers was valued just as highly as input from experts and consultants, and we organized numerous parties and social events to help spread the word.

The local Democratic and Green Parties formally endorsed the effort, and leaders of both worked arm-in-arm during the campaign. They were joined by organized labor and every peace, justice, and environmental protection group in the community. Humboldt County modeled a campaign carried out with respectful unity.

This effort did not spring up out of thin air. It was the result of years of old-fashioned community organizing by Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County that included workshops and educational programs explaining how corporations have acquired more rights under the law than people have.

We designed the campaign with "big picture" goals in mind from the beginning. We knew we wanted to claim for our campaign the best and most noble ideals of American history--especially self-governance and protecting people's rights against abusive power. We realize that the founding of this country is deeply flawed, but we used the national creation story to put Measure T on the side of truth and justice.

To that end, our PAC was named the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights, and our website was VoteLocalControl.org. Our primary outreach tool was a tea bag that reminded voters of the proud history of the Boston Tea Party as an act of rebellion against the most powerful corporation of the day, and called for a modern-day T(ea) Party of our own.

Like the populists of the 19th-century agrarian movement, we believe that genuine change cannot be imposed from the top down. It must proceed from the ground up, and the battles must be waged in local communities.

This is BIG. If communities around the country follows this lead, we will all be better off.

[aquart]

1. Be nice if New York did it.

And the land sings back, "Fat chance, fat chance."

[B Calm]

32. Be even nicer if the whole United States did it!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. would be nice

:hi:

[burrowowl]

2. Do something about Delaware

where corporations incorporate.

[treestar]

82. Uphill battle getting the Delawareans to vote for that

We have been conditioned from time immemorial that this is a benefit to the little state.

We get the fees and we have the most developed body of corporate law, and no way is the state Supreme Court ever going to let such a law stand.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. The most successful conspiracy of our time? (corporate personhood)

The Necessary Embrace of Conspiracy

By Robert Shetterly

SNIP

In fact, the cultural success of labeling investigative reporters and forensic historians, and, simply, anyone who tries to name reality, “conspiracy nuts” is perhaps the most successful conspiracy of our time. Well, not the most successful. That prize goes to the conspiracy to give corporations all the rights of individual persons under our Constitution. That conspiracy has codified and consolidated corporate power so that it controls our lives in almost every meaningful way. It controls the election funds of our candidates, and them once they are in office. It controls our major media including public broadcasting. It controls the content of our television programming. It controls how are tax dollars are spent making sure that the richest get the most welfare. It controls the laws, the courts, the prison system and the mind numbing propaganda that we are the greatest democracy on earth. It controls the values with which we raise our children. It controls our ability to dispense justice. It controls how we treat nature, how we deface our land with strip malls, and blow the tops off our mountains — a form of corporate free speech. It dictates our modes of transportation. It controls our inability to respond to true crises like climate change. It attempts to create a spiritual deficiency in every person that can be filled and healed only with stuff — and no stuff is ever enough.

As Richard Grossman puts it, “Isn’t it an old story? People create what looks to be a nifty machine, a robot, called the corporation. Over time, the robots get together and overpower the people. … For a century, the robots propagandize and indoctrinate each generation of people so they grow up believing that robots are people too, gifts from God and Mother Nature; that they are inevitable and the source of all that is good. How odd that we have been so gullible, so docile, obedient.”

It is obvious to say that we have been engineered into a culture that values competitive consumption and consumers instead of community cooperation and citizenship. Capitalism with its obsessive and necessary appetite for consumption, expanding markets, resource depletion, and increasing profits has consumed democracy. Have you ever watched a small snake swallow a large frog? The snake’s hinged jaw stretches wider and wider, squeezing the frog millimeter by millimeter into its gullet until finally the snake looks like the Holland Tunnel might if it had devoured the Titanic. Then the acids and enzymes do their corrosive work. The frog becomes the snake. And the snake claims it is the frog. Capitalism has gulped down democracy and claimed it is democracy. When, immediately after 9/11, President Bush advised Americans to demonstrate their love of freedom and their resistance to terrorism by courageously, selflessly, hurrying to the mall to buy something, he was speaking as the snake that identifies itself as a frog. He was asking us to play a little game with our brains’ synapses, replace the snake icon with the frog’s. Sadly, he may also have been speaking about democracy in the only way that he can understand or recognize it. And, for him, Christianity has been another tidy meal for the snake.

Perhaps this switcheroo is nowhere more obvious than in the military /industrial complex. We are told that the vulnerable frog needs protecting. The threats are grave. So we fork over our money and children’s lives for war and weapons. We are told that we are building security and peace. More lives. More weapons. What we aren’t told is that the largest US export to the world is weapons. What we aren’t told is that enormous fortunes are being made from the arms trade. What we aren’t told is that the more precarious and unstable the world is, the better the business for the arms dealers — that the real promotion is not for security and peace but insecurity and war, that the lives of our children are the necessary collateral damage for this monster. What we aren’t told is that the only real security is in cooperation, conservation, and fairness, not imperialism. The frog, who is a snake, wrapped in a flag, pleads for patriotism and counts the cash. The snake’s forked tongue is a barbeque fork on which we’ve all been roasted.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/31/3521/

[Democrats_win]

12. Great quote from this: " Capitalism has gulped down democracy and claimed it is democracy."

From the article "The Necessary Embrace of Conspiracy."

It is from the story about how the snake gulps down a frog and then the snake claims it is the frog. That's what happened to democracy.

[NashVegas]

4. Following the Orders of Osama Bin Laden!

Off to the gulag you go.

[peacetalksforall]

5. I'm moving. Amazing! Inspiring! I think it is the only good word I've

heard in relation to corporations for years - I'm flying high.

I loved hearing the list of the people who did this. Love 'em!

[goodgd_yall]

6. Yay, for Humboldt County! n/t

[WillyT]

7. Way Ta Go Humbolt !!! - K & R !!!

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

:kick:

[Sherman A1]

8. Way to Go!

Yippee!

[Initech]

9. That does it, I'm moving to Humboldt.

It's a beautiful city and it's run by hippies, and they do something like this. What more could ya want?

[stillcool]

10. where it's at...

I sent a LTTE recently...asking the District Attorney to intervene on behalf of the state's citizens...before her job was out-sourced to the White House.

[robinlynne]

11. Maybe there IS a place to move to....

[Gabi Hayes]

13. I read the news today, oh boy......

http://cannabisnews.com/news/14/thread14509.shtml

[truedelphi]

14. I was trying to surmise how it is that people in this remote California County are so enlightened

Then I rememebered what the main crop grown over there is!

[Blue Fire]

41. You mean the redwood trees, right?

:smoke:

[truedelphi]

47. That must be the one! n/t

[Cats Against Frist]

15. Good for them! eom

[qdemn7]

16. Excellent! But we still need a Constitutional Amendment..

Reclaim Democracy.org

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Amendment to Reverse Buckley v. Valeo and Dominance of Wealth in Electoral Politics

SECTION 1. For the purposes of providing all citizens, regardless of wealth, a more equal opportunity to influence elections, public policy and run for public office; of furthering the principle of “one person, one vote” and preserving a participatory and democratic republic; as well as the purpose of limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption, we the people declare the unlimited use of money to influence elections incompatible with the principle of equal protection established under the Fourteenth Amendment.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of any federal election.

SECTION 3. Each state shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of elections in that state.

SECTION 4. The power of each state to set limits on contributions and expenditures shall extend to all elections in that state, including initiative and referendum elections, as well as the power to lower any federal limits for the election of members of Congress to represent the people of that state.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Possible additions/strengthening of Section 1:

* Equal protection under the law shall not be abridged or denied on account of wealth, religion, sex, or race.
* Include ban on corporate spending within this Amendment, rather than in separate one (see below).

[formercia]

30. Buckley v. Valeo, the Knights consolidate their power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/caqsmom25.1.html

In addition to Casey, and James Buckley, its current members, or Knights, after the feudal fashion, include Lee Iacocca, John McCone, William Buckley, Alexander Haig, Alexandre de Marenches (the chief of French Intelligence under Giscard d'Estaing, himself a Knight of SMOM), Otto von Hapsburg, and various leaders of the fascist P-2 Masonic lodge in Italy. While its organizational funding is relatively modest, its leverage is maximized by the presence of its Knights in key positions in other private and governmental structures throughout the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Buckley

James Lane Buckley (born March 9, 1923 in New York City) was a United States Senator from the state of New York as a member of the Conservative Party of New York State. Buckley served from January 3, 1971 to January 3, 1977. Formerly, he was vice president and director of the Catawba Corporation from 1953 to 1970, and afterwards served as Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance 1981–1982, President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. 1982–1985, and as a federal judge 1985–2000.

He was also the lead petitioner in a landmark Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo, in which he successfully challenged the constitutionality of a law limiting campaign spending in Congressional races.

In 1970 he was elected to the U.S. Senate as a member of the Conservative Party of New York State, winning 38.7% of the vote in a three-way race, and served from 1971 until 1977. To date he has been the only member of his party elected to the U.S. Senate and is the last third party candidate elected to the Senate.<1>

[flashl]

38. Is Nike a Person?

Nike v. Kasky

On April 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Nike v. Kasky, a case that involves a suit filed in California by Mark Kasky (acting as a “private attorney general”) alleging that the Nike Corporation and/or it representatives released false statements regarding its practices in Third World countries. If the allegations are true, Nike would have violated both California’s Unfair Competition Law and its False Advertising Law. Nike has defended itself using the First Amendment “as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment” – that is, corporations enjoy the status of individuals and therefore protected as such by virtue of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has been hailed as a potential landmark in First Amendment regulation. However, it also has the potential to become a landmark in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as will be discussed in this article.

---

"According to the California Supreme Court, commercial speech can be distinguished from noncommercial speech ... {And}, because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, state and local laws must adhere to the freedom of speech provision of the Constitution."

ANY constitutional amendment makes me leery given the level of doublespeak and the ability of legislators to change the meaning of the “plain text”.

And, if my understanding of how corporations obtained "personhood" is correct --- a Supreme Court clerk's error -- then why not just correct the error in a court of law?

[puebloknot]

80. "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann covers the matter...

...of the court clerk's decision (not even an error, apparently, but a "decider" from our early history) which led to corporate "personhood."

Your question is a good one!

[Greyskye]

17. Humboldt gets it.

:hippie: :thumbsup:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

18. my kid went to college there for a year.

Spent her junior year at Humboldt State in Arcata as part of a domestic exchange program.
She loved it, said fewer kids did heavy drugs and heavy drinking because of the scenery - gorgeous beach, redwood forest, mountains to rock climb....groovin' on nature instead of drugs.

She called it "Liberal Disneyland". Said I'd love it there. She told me about how they passed a city ordinance banning compliance with the Patriot Act. Woo hoo!!!

[Telly Savalas]

19. Humboldt's city government was so plagued by the influence of corporate interests

that this was necessary?

I didn't realize it was that kind of place.

In any case it's nice to know that corporations don't have "personhood", whatever the fuck that is, because if "personhood" is in the exclusive domain of individuals, it will never be abused.

[fed-up]

21. I suggest you watch "The Corporation" nt

[defendandprotect]

20. Corporations don't breathe . . . nor do they have conscience . . . .

[Kansas Wyatt]

48. Nor can they be jailed for illegal activities.

[defendandprotect]

67. Well, we don't know because Ken Lay died before he was sentenced . .. .

[defendandprotect]

68. And GE, for one, has had a long corrupt, criminal history of defrauding the US government . .

but it continues to make weapons for the US --

Why should criminality be an excuse to bar a corporation from profits -- ???

[eppur_se_muova]

71. They cannot suffer, or grieve, and so are immune to the harm which they can easily inflict.

This is why corporations can never be regarded as equal to 'persons' -- they can feel no pain, yet they have unparalleled capacity to inflict pain and suffering.

For some time I have agreed with the notion that there should be a death penalty for corporations -- that those whose activities lead to loss of life comparable to multiple manslaughter or murder should be disincorporated and their properties sold off, with no portion larger than 10% or so going to any single purchaser (so the executed remains dead), and the chief officers barred from taking executive positions for some specified period of time (as, IIRC, already happens in certain cases, Milkin being one). No government should be reluctant to inflict such a penalty. It is, in fact, not so much comparable to the death sentence for criminals as it is comparable to the euthanization of dangerous animals -- the question of whether wrongdoing can be 'conscious' on the part of a company, which thereby deserves punishment, is academic if we realize the point of the euthanization is to eliminate a danger, independent of any punishment or retribution.

[Exiled in America]

74. If they are a person then they are best characterized as a psycopath.

The documentary "The Corporation" laid this out very well.

Characteristics of a Psychopath (sociopath, anti-social behavior):
1. Glibness/superficial charm.
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Conning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavior problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)

[JohnyCanuck]

90. "The Corporation" - a film and a book.

About the Film

WINNER OF 26 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS! 10 Audience Choice Awards including the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.

Provoking, witty, stylish and sweepingly informative, THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Part film and part movement, The Corporation is transforming audiences and dazzling critics with its insightful and compelling analysis. Taking its status as a legal "person" to the logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" The Corporation includes interviews with 40 corporate insiders and critics - including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Milton Friedman, Howard Zinn, Vandana Shiva and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.

"AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING EXTRAS, there is basically another 6-hour (!) documentary included." MovieFreak

Along with the groundbreaking 145-minute theatrical version of the film, the two-disc DVD has eight hours of never-before-seen footage. In addition to two commentary tracks, deleted scenes, and Q's-and-A's, 165 new clips and updates are sorted "by person" and "by topic." Get the details you want to know on the issues you care about. Then, check out the web links for follow-up research and action.

THE CORPORATION is Canada's most successful documentary... EVER!

The film is based on the book THE CORPORATION: THE PATHOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF POWER by Joel Bakan.

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=2

About the book

THE CORPORATION: THE PATHOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF POWER

by Joel Bakan.

Eminent Canadian law professor and legal theorist Joel Bakan contends the modern business corporation is created by law to function like a psychopathic personality. The book was written during the making of THE CORPORATION (co-created with Mark Achbar) and formed the basis of the research and writing for the film.

Beginning with its origins in the sixteenth century, Bakan traces the corporation's rise to dominance. In what Simon and Schuster describes as "the most revolutionary assessment of the corporation since Peter Drucker's early works", The Corporation makes the following claims:

* Corporations are required by law to elevate their own interests above those of others, making them prone to prey upon and exploit others without regard for legal rules or moral limits.
* Corporate social responsibility, though sometimes yielding positive results, most often serves to mask the corporation's true character, not to change it.
* The corporation's unbridled self interest victimizes individuals, the environment, and even shareholders, and can cause corporations to self-destruct, as recent Wall Street scandals reveal.
* Despite its flawed character, governments have freed the corporation from legal constraints through deregulation, and granted it ever greater power over society through privatization.

Bakan urges restoration of the corporation's original purpose, to serve the public interest, and calls for re-establishment of democratic control over the institution. Concrete, pragmatic, and realistic reforms are proposed. A groundbreaking book filled with big ideas and fascinating stories, The Corporation is original, provocative and informative.

Continued at: www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=47

[Exiled in America]

92. I have both.

The book is exceptionally good and really compliments the documentary. There is a lot more detail in the book at points and I'm glad that I have both.

[flashl]

93. Are the Twelve Proposals for real Corporate Reform close to the book? n/t

[Doremus]

98. Nor do they have a lifespan.

They can exist indefinitely, amassing wealth and power that far eclipses any individual.

[bridgit]

22. Humboldt made the move earlier this year, but it's still good to see...

:hippie:

[burythehatchet]

23. that is terrific. n/t

[Bennyboy]

24. Those Goddamn dope smoking hippies.....

up in Humboldt sure do seem to know what is going on!

[Usrename]

25. Hurray for Humboldt County!

Sounds like a great place! I do like their attitude and thier politics.

[Vidar]

26. Wonderful idea! Hope it catches on. Madly cheering Humboldt County!

[lligrd]

27. Wonderful To See Corporations Put Back In Their Place

Hope more cities will follow.

[mike_c]

28. I voted for measure T, LOL....

Glad to see this getting some wider exposure.

[Vidar]

57. Thank you. Even if it's only a symboic gesture, it's a very powerful

one, and a vote you can be proud of.

[bjobotts]

29. Fantastic...this is HUGE. It was never intended that corps be personages

And they've never acted like personages except to avoid responsibility or avoid taxes. Lord knows they never DIE. This "personhood" has been like a huge entwined vine slowly strangling American businesses for decades and destroying our democracy by avoiding regulation and becoming powerful political lobbyists who try to control our representatives through contributions, especially the corporate media who suck candidates dry with huge price tags to control the message.
Finally, meaningful legislation to make corporations responsible while keeping their financial influence away from our candidates.
Congratulations Humboldt County...a shining example of true democracy at work.

[lonestarnot]

31. Hot diggity damn! True leadership in a whole fucking community!

:woohoo: :patriot:

[Bread and Circus]

33. This is one of the most fundamental movements that needs to happen.

Currently, corporations get all the advantages of personhood but not the same sorts of responsibilities or role in society.

[MasonJar]

34. Great post! Thanks for sharing. Now if we can publicize this maybe

other communities will follow. We can add this near the top of the 1000s of Bush iniquities which need to be corrected.

[treestar]

35. I fear the main effect will be on small companies

Locals who won't be able to go into small businesses without personal liability - the huge corporations won't feel it. Even if a judgment is ever rendered against their shareholders, the cost of collecting a portion of the judgment on each share is prohibitive.

It just forces anyone small to go into business only as a sole proprietorship or take the risks of partnership. If your partner does something untoward, you're liable.

[tammywammy]

40. Exactly

And you'd be surprised, Cingular/AT&T Wireless, it's a partnership, not a corporation. But the small coffee shop I used to manage was a corporation.

[flashl]

43. When we think of business isn't that the reason for contract law? n/t

[Solon]

55. How does declaring "corporate personhood" non-existant endanger corporations...

they existed just fine before this legal doctrine was adopted. It doesn't even change the fundamental structure of corporations at all, rather it strips them of the rights of personhood. Corporations are entities of limited liability, and should be treated as such, they should NOT have any rights of individual persons.

[treestar]

81. You're right, this is a more limited measure than it is described

http://www.votelocalcontrol.org/ordinance_text.htm

Section 4. Specific Purpose.
The specific purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit non-local corporations from making direct or indirect contributions and independent expenditures in all elections within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, including candidate campaigns, initiatives, referendums and recalls.

Section 5. Prohibitions.
Non-local corporations shall be prohibited from paying or contributing, directly or indirectly, any money, property, compensated service of its officers or employees, independent expenditures, or any other thing of value for the purpose of:

a) Promoting or defeating the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County; or

b) Promoting or defeating any initiative, referendum or recall election within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, California.

Section 8. Statement of Law.
No corporation shall be entitled to claim corporate constitutional rights or protections in an effort to overturn this law.

That strikes me as unjust, though. Why are they unwilling to have this law tested under the constitution? Just as heavy handed as the right wing's laws of that kind.

Section 9. Statement of Law.
Nothing in this Ordinance prevents individual corporate employees, trustees, directors, or shareholders from voluntarily and without coercion by the corporation contributing their own personal money or uncompensated services in elections to the extent allowed under state and federal campaign finance laws.

Section 10. Exemptions.
1) Local corporations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

2) Local labor organizations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

3) Local nonprofit organizations shall be specifically exempted from the prohibitions in Section Five of this Ordinance.

Section 11. Definitions.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following words and phrases in this Ordinance shall have the following meaning:

CORPORATION: An organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California or holding a Certificate of Authority to do Business within the State of California; or an organization incorporated under the laws of any state in the United States; also includes limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies; also includes organizations operating as nonprofits as defined by the Internal Revenue Service Code and Regulations, with the exception of political parties.

LOCAL CORPORATION: A corporation in which all employees reside in Humboldt County, and has its primary place of business in Humboldt County, and has its corporate headquarters located in Humboldt County, and all shares of stock (if any) are owned by individuals residing in Humboldt County, and no portion of the corporation is owned by another corporation.

LOCAL LABOR ORGANIZATION: A labor organization as defined by the National Labor Relations Act in which at least one member resides in Humboldt County. Also includes labor unions and trade unions with at least one member who resides in Humboldt County.

LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION: An organization classified as a nonprofit organization under Internal Revenue Service Code and Regulations in which all members of the board of directors reside in Humboldt County.

NON-LOCAL CORPORATION: Any corporation or organization that does not meet the above definition of "Local Corporation" or "Local Labor Organization" or "Local Nonprofit Organization."

PERSON or PEOPLE: Human beings.

Since local corporations are exempt, they can even contribute to campaigns.

Section 12. Enforcement.
Any non-local corporation found to have contributed directly or indirectly any money, property, compensated service of its officers or employees, independent expenditures, or any other thing of value to political campaigns, initiatives, referendums shall pay to the County of Humboldt ten (10) times the amount the corporation inappropriately contributed.

If any non-local corporation is found to have contributed (directly or indirectly) more than $25,000 to any political campaigns, initiatives or referendums in violation of this Ordinance, the Humboldt County District Attorney shall petition the California Attorney General to:

a) Initiate a charter revocation proceeding against the corporation if the corporation is chartered in California, or

b) Initiate a proceeding to revoke the corporation's Certificate of Authority to do Business in California if the corporation is not chartered in California.

Any violation of this Ordinance shall give rise to a mandatory duty on the part of the District Attorney to enforce this Ordinance. If the District Attorney fails to bring an action to enforce this Ordinance, any natural person residing in Humboldt shall have standing before the Court for enforcement as described in Section 13.

Section 13. Citizen Suits.
This Ordinance creates and vests in every citizen of Humboldt County the right to sue to compel compliance with this Ordinance. All actions shall be brought in the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt.

Citizen-Plaintiffs shall notify the District Attorney in writing of their intent to sue, and the District Attorney shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the notice to initiate an action to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance. Action by the District Attorney following that notice shall supplant the ability to file a citizen suit, but if the District Attorney does not diligently pursue the litigation, the right of the Citizen-Plaintiffs to initiate a suit shall not be impaired.

This is the part that won't work. The State of California can just thumb its nose at the idea of revoking the charter. They're not going to want to do that.

[lonestarnot]

36. Post the model for other communities to run with in their own communities.

[flashl]

44. Measure T, 51 mins video

Learn more about Measure T in a Pros and Cons Video, produced by Eileen McGee

[lonestarnot]

94. Thanks flashl

[BrainGlutton]

37. If a corporation can't claim First Amendment rights, neither can any organization.

I mean, there are no grounds under the First Amendment for discriminating between one kind of organization and another.

Anyway, it's a myth that a corporation is considered a "person" for all legal purposes. For instance, a corporation can't vote. Neither can a political party or a PAC.

[mainegreen]

39. Corporations can't vote? Sure seems like they do.

Money is a vote. Hell, it's many votes. It's the difference between theory and practice.

[datasuspect]

50. precisely the point

[datasuspect]

49. no but they are accorded protections under the 14th and 16th amendments

they have all the rights and privileges of a natural person, but none of the obligations.

[Exiled in America]

75. It is not a myth and I can cite you the direct supreme court decision that proves it if you want.

Corporations are defined as "persons" under the law.

[whistle]

42. It is about time, corporations are not people, they are made up of people

...and as such those people need to be be held accountable for their misdeeds and criminal actions even when committed on behalf of self-interest for the good of the corporation.

[BadgerLaw2010]

45. Yay. Great way to screw start ups.

Moronic law.

[The Traveler]

46. I've done the start up thing

And I'm not entirely sure of the basis for your comment. Specifically, I am not sure how the legal myth of corporate personhood benefits the typical start up company, and therefore do not see how this law harms the typical start up company.

[datasuspect]

51. incorporation is good if you have significant assets

or high capitalization at formation.

for most small businesses, the legal protections afforded by incorporation are often not necessary until revenue starts picking up and there is some actual monetary value inherent in the venture.

[treestar]

84. No, small businesses often incorporate.

There is no reason to court personal liability just because you don't have assets yet. A business could fail and still have judgments against it.

[BadgerLaw2010]

52. Do you really want your personal assets exposed to your business liability?

[datasuspect]

54. it's not an all or nothing issue

there are millions of sole proprietorships in this country.

[Solon]

56. Jesus Fucking Christ, this does NOT change the STRUCTURE of corporations!

It has little to nothing to do with PERSONAL liability, and everything to do with HOW corporations can be regulated and legal limits on their own activities AS CORPORATIONS.

[mike_c]

59. I certainly DO want business folks to be personally responsible...

...for the consequences of their corporate behavior, so I suppose my answer is a resounding yes!

[Exiled in America]

77. Yes. Divest the risk through partnership, but remain directly accountable for your business.

[Exiled in America]

76. start-ups are generally not public companies-were never considered "persons" legally to begin with.

Do try to know what you are talking about.

[datasuspect]

87. a corporation doesn't always have to be publicly traded.

[treestar]

83. The law only says they can't contribute to campaigns

and doesn't apply to lcoal corporations (though a small business might exist across country lines) - even so a start up won't be making political contributions anyway.

[Doremus]

99. I'd be interested in learning how corporate personhood enables start-ups too.

What specific benefits does personhood provide to start ups?

Surely you are able to recite them, given that you think the law is moronic and a hindrance to start ups ... so let's hear them.

[spanone]

53. Kick

[Forkboy]

58. I'd recommend this a hundred times if I could.

:kick:

[MUSTANG_2004]

60. There are some benefits to corporate personhood

Reasons why I think the current status quo is ok:

1) Corporations use the 4th amendment to protect their customers, as when Google refused to turn over search data to the government. If they no longer have 4th amendment rights, all personal data held by companies can be seized by the government without due process. Think about all the emails on Yahoo and Google servers that would suddenly be accessible by the government without a warrant.

2) Restricting free speech is almost always a very bad idea, no matter who is being restricted. For instance, let's say corporations' speech is no longer protected. That would mean the government could prevent amazon.com from describing their books in a certain way. Or stop Yahoo from opening message boards on certain topics. And DU - if they incorporate for business reasons, do they suddenly lose the right to post what they want?

[Why Syzygy]

61. I think in those cases

the personal rights of the individuals could be enforced. Just because I use a product doesn't mean I give up my constituional rights.

[MUSTANG_2004]

62. Correct, you don't give up your rights

But you don't have any rights in any of those cases.

You have no right to the search or email data in google. It's up to google whether to store it or delete it or give it all to the government, you have no say in the matter since you don't own the data. (This is different than copyrights - google can't re-publish your emails since you own your words, but the actual data is owned by google, much like when someone buys the original manuscript to a book. They own the document, but can't re-publish the book.)

You have no right to force Yahoo to allow you to create a Yahoo Group.

You have no right to read a specific book review on amazon.com.

And on DU, since they (theoretically) chose to turn DU into a corporation with no 1st amendment protection, they can no longer use DU as the vehicle to post whatever they want, since DU itself has no free speech.

[Why Syzygy]

73. Certainly laws can be

written to protect private property from the government. It is on thin ice as it is. Making corporations "persons" is not the only solution.

I don't get the poing of your example to force yahoo to create a group. If it is a service they provide, they can determine the boundaries according to law.

A confidentiality agreement should do it. Don't do business with anyone who doesn't offer one.

[MUSTANG_2004]

78. Confidentiality agreement?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a confidentiality agreement solving the problem. A confidentiality agreement doesn't stop a company from turning over information that the government requires. Without 4th amendment protections, the government doesn't even need to use due process to get it, since the corporation isn't protected by the 4th amendment.

You are correct that they could pass laws to protect customers' personal information. The catch with that is that the government that would be responsible for writing those laws is the same government that is trying to get that information in the first place. The roadblock for them is the 4th amendment. If it were only a law that was stopping them, then they would have changed the law so that it didn't stop them.

[Solon]

64. Free speech also means freedom to lie...

for a corporation, that means they can find ways out of false advertisement laws, for example, or for media companies to be allowed to bury stories or deliberately mislead the public, on war for example, without consequences.

[MUSTANG_2004]

65. That's true

But if the government can control the speech, do you think that would make it worse or better?

My opinion is that letting everyone talk, and then filtering through the lies, is more likely to lead to the truth.

[Solon]

66. The weakness in your argument is that Free Speech isn't an absolute right...

if it were, then Libel and Slander laws wouldn't exist, nor would incitement to violence laws.

Another reason is the size and influence of corporations is far greater than any individual. If five or six individual people lie about something, their influence is limited. If five or six corporations did the same thing, they can influence millions, with the 95% of the media they own.

Corporations, on a practical level, aren't persons, due to their structure, they cannot die, they don't even have a conscience, you cannot even imprison them when they break the law. Because of this, the law should treat them for what they are, entities of limited liability, NOT persons.

[flashl]

72. I agree, for instance, Purdue Pharma

OxyContin Maker, 3 Execs Fined $634.5M

Purdue Pharma, 3 Executives Ordered to Pay $634.5M Fine for Misleading Public About OxyContin

Purdue Pharma L.P., the maker of OxyContin, and three of its executives were ordered Friday to pay a $634.5 million fine for misleading the public about the painkiller's risk of addiction.

I will not get on my soapbox about oxycontin but the harm caused to the public unknowingly drawn into addiction using oxycontin is HUGE. Not only was Purdue just fined, the DOJ attempted to intercede on its behalf.

If this is the way our government truly feels about drug dealers then it should release thousands from Federal prisons.

[flashl]

70. Other points to consider ...

Carnivore a controversial program developed by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) gave the agency access to the online/e-mail activities of suspected criminals. The “suspected criminals” part sounds good, but that wasn’t the way the FBI routinely used it. They would go to a ma and pa ISP and place their carnivore system at the entry point of the ISP essentially allowing them access to ALL of the traffic within the ISP. There weren’t any Fourth Amendment protections when carnivore was used this way.

The Supreme Court established in CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, a four-part test for determining whether limitations on commercial speech are constitutional.

1. To receive constitutional protection, commercial speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
   
   
2. If the communication passes the first test, a court must then determine if the government interest advanced by the regulation is substantial.
   
   
3. If a substantial government interest is at stake, a court must ask whether the commercial speech regulation directly advances the government interest.
   
   
4. Finally, the court must determine whether the regulation of speech is no more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest.

[AntiFascist]

63. How to deal with corporate welfare?

It seems that "socialism at the top" is as big of a problem as the misuse of capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

69. This is the kind of question we need to be asking our prez candidates --

I'm sure Kucinich would love a question like that -- !!!

[The Count]

79. Corporations are immortal "persons" with no responsibilities, just rights

They want all your rights, but if they commit a crime, they won't be punished - not like you are at least.

[treestar]

85. They do have responsibilities

Not every corporation is a huge corporation.

They have to pay the fees and file the forms with the Secretary of State. They can be sued and will be liable for what is proven against them.

They can't commit crimes just because they aren't people - the individuals who commit crimes in the course of its business will be prosecuted, there's no defense that "I was doing it for the corporation."

As for free speech, all the stockholders and directors still have free speech, so it's not going to shut up anyone real.

[Nikki Stone1]

88. Kick

:kick:

[The Backlash Cometh]

89. Hallelujah!

[flashl]

91. Twelve Proposals for real Corporate Reform

Citizen Works

Twelve Proposals for real Corporate Reform

1. REIN IN EXCESSIVE EXECUTIVE PAY. I support legislation that would require shareholder authorization of top executive compensation packages that are the incentive for crooked accounting and inflated profits. A mandatory vote should be required for the top three and any other executives whose total compensation is above $1 million. I also support cutting tax deductions for compensation above 25 times that received by the lowest paid worker in a corporation.
   
2. STRENGTHEN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. I support legislation that would grant shareholders the right to democratically nominate and elect (including through the use of cumulative voting procedures) the corporate board of directors and approve all major business decisions such as mergers and acquisitions above $1 billion in value.
   
3. REPEAL THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995. I support repealing this loss of investor rights that allowed the aiders and abetters of corporate crime (such as accounting and corporate law firms) to escape civil liability.
   
4. BAN CORPORATE CRIMINALS FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. I support the enactment of a tough debarment statute that would deny federal business to serious and/or repeat corporate lawbreakers.
   
5. STRENGTHEN PENSION REFORMS. I support the enactment of strong pension reforms to improve upon those now being discussed in Congress. At a minimum we need to give workers a voice on the pension board; not require workers to stuff their 401 (k) plans with company stock; and give workers a right to vote for their 401 (k) stock. In addition, an Office of Participant Advocacy should be created in the Department of Labor to monitor pension plans.
   
6. STOP CORPORATE TAX DODGERS. I support punishing corporate tax escapees by closing the offshore reincorporation loophole and banning government contracts and subsidies for companies that relocate their headquarters to an offshore tax haven.
   
7. REGULATE DERIVATIVES TRADING. I support regulating all over-the-counter financial instruments, including derivatives, so that they are subject to the same or equivalent audit and reporting requirements as other financial instruments traded on the stock exchanges. Rules should be enacted regarding collateral-margin, reporting and dealer licensing in order to maintain regulatory parity and ensure that markets are transparent and problems can be detected before they become a crisis.
   
8. END CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON WALL STREET. I support toughening federal regulation of banks, insurance and securities firms and other financial institutions. I also support anti-tying rules to prevent conflicts of interest among financial entities.
   
9. EXPAND DISCLOSURE. I support a new and stronger sunshine law that will provide better information to the public about the policies and conditions of financial institutions and the performance of federal agencies charged with regulating these corporations.
   
10. TRACK THE EXTENT AND COST OF CORPORATE CRIME. I support establishing a publicly accessible online corporate crime database at the Department of Justice. The FBI should also produce an annual corporate and white-collar crime report as an analogue to its Crime in America report, which focuses principally on street crime.
    
11. PROTECT FINANCIAL CONSUMERS. Consumer protection works best when consumers are organized and represented in legislative and regulatory proceedings. For this reason, I support the creation of a federally-chartered non-profit Financial Consumers Association to which millions of consumers could belong and redress the imbalance of power.
    
12. FOSTER A NATIONAL DISCUSSION ON CORPORATE POWER. I support establishing a Congressional Commission on Corporate Power to explore various legal and economic proposals that would rein in unaccountable giant corporations. The Commission would seek ways to improve upon the current corporate chartering system and propose ways to correct the inequitable legal status of corporations such as the judicial doctrine of corporate "personhood." The Commission would be led by a congressionally-appointed experts on corporate and constitutional law, and would hold citizen hearings in ten cities.
    

[lonestarnot]

100. What about corporate pollution?

Slash and burn, water, land abuse?

[flashl]

101. Thats a good point...

Perhaps in the crime section?

[lonestarnot]

102. Yes.

[Donkeykick]

95. This is the right thing to do!

Companies are not individuals; they're are entities; that's it, that's that!

[suffragette]

96. Well done, Humboldt!

:applause:

[JerseygirlCT]

97. This is AWESOME. And long overdue. I hope it's also contagious nt