ChrisWeigant.com

"Anybody But Romney, Inc." Announces Presidential Bid

[ Posted Monday, November 14th, 2011 – 15:56 PST ]

In a surprise move today, the seven major Republican candidates for president (who are not named "Mitt Romney") decided to merge their campaigns, and run as a single corporate "person" they are now calling "Anybody But Romney, Incorporated."

Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum held a joint press conference to announce the formation of "ABR, Inc." This move is unprecedented in the history of presidential campaigns, but all seven candidates spoke of it as the natural reaction by Republicans to avoid nominating Mitt Romney, who is just not trusted by roughly three-fourths of the Republican electorate. By joining forces, the field of non-Romney candidates said, they can assure Republican voters that Romney will not be their party's standard-bearer next year.

While the concept of a corporation running for the highest office in the land seems to be unconstitutional on its face, the group stated that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case has opened the door for such a move. "If corporations are persons," said Herman Cain in the press conference, "then why shouldn't they run for president? It just makes sense."

ABR, Inc. swears that, if elected, they will rotate the individual who sits in the Oval Office chair on a weekly basis. "We will draw straws to determine the order in which we'll rotate the roster of who is spokesperson each week," explained Newt Gingrich, "but for all important decisions, we will rule as a group, with each person having an equal vote." Gingrich went on to point out that, since there were an odd number in the corporation, "it'll be impossible for us to have a tie vote." The clip of Gingrich describing his group comprised of an "odd number" immediately went viral online.

The question of a running mate was left open, for now. "Gosh, there's lots of folks out there who would probably do a better job than Joe Biden," responded Michele Bachmann, when asked who would share the ticket with ABR, Inc. "We're confident that, when the time comes, we'll be able to pick one of them, or perhaps a coalition of them, should they choose to incorporate."

Rick Santorum was dripping with enthusiasm for the corporation's chances. "Look, over seventy percent of Republicans obviously won't hold their noses and vote for Mitt." This, he said, leaves a huge majority for ABR, Inc. to turn out at the polls. Jon Huntsman agreed with this idea, saying "we've seen how the Republican base has flirted with a number of us so far -- and this way, they won't have to choose between us." This is perhaps natural, since neither Huntsman nor Santorum has polled well throughout the campaign so far.

Ron Paul pitched his appeal slightly differently, actually quoting his own poll numbers. "I consistently poll at around one-in-ten Republican voters. My question to my loyal supporters is: which would you rather see, me in the Oval Office one week out of every seven, or Mitt Romney there every day of every week?" Paul could barely be heard by the end of his statement, due to a large contingent of his followers cheering loudly at the back of the room, but the microphones picked up his final words: "I think the choice is obvious, don't you?"

Rick Perry took the podium to explain the breakdown of responsibilities the seven would share on the campaign trail for the next few months. "I will be in charge of looking good for the cameras," Perry stated with a wide grin, "and I feel confident that my haircut can take on Romney's haircut, follicle for follicle. I'll admit Mitt's got good hair, but my hair is Texas hair and simply does not back down from a tough fight." Perry also said he'd be "the guy everyone wants to sit down and have a beer with." Perry seemed to want to continue with a third responsibility, but he was hustled away from the microphone before he could do so. Newt Gingrich joked with reporters, "I think two items is enough for Rick to take care of, right? Three would be a step too far, we think."

Gingrich went on to lay out his main duties in the campaign. "I will be representing ABR, Inc. in all the remaining candidate debates. We all agree that I'm the master debater of the lot, so this will be my major focus in the weeks ahead. I can wipe the floor with Mitt Romney on television, and I will be doing so from now on. I'll also be in charge of foreign policy, because I am able to name many countries in the rest of the world."

Herman Cain took over at this point, and outlined the rest of the team's responsibilities, after joking that Newt would also be in charge of rallying "the Tiffany's shoppers" in the base, with Newt's "diamond-hard intellect."

When the laughter had died down, Cain began listing what the rest of the corporate spokespeople would be doing. Jon Huntsman, Cain said, would be in charge of outreach to Mormon voters, because "we're going to win Utah, much to Mitt's surprise!" Huntsman would also be in charge of speaking to groups of moderate voters, although Cain admitted this would likely not take place until the general election, because there were so few moderate Republican primary voters left.

Ron Paul, according to Cain, would be in charge of Libertarian outreach, and motivating "all those voters out West whom the rest of us have no clue how to reach." Michele Bachmann would be in charge of the campaign's Iowa caucus organization, "since she's already all but taken up residence in the state." Bachmann would also be the go-to spokeswoman whenever the "liberal mainstream media" wanted an interview, "because she seems to enjoy going on these shows so much."

Rick Santorum would lead the efforts to turn out the Tea Party and "family values" faction of Republican voters, and would also be in charge of the ABR corporation's online operations -- although Cain did issue a plea "for the love of God, don't Google his name... just give him a call, OK?"

Asked who would be in charge of outreach to gays, Cain responded "We're not going to do that, sorry." Asked who would lead the effort to get Latino votes, Cain merely looked puzzled. He turned to the rest of the group and tried to ask privately (although his voice was clearly caught by the microphones), "Latinos can vote? I thought they were all illegal!"

Recovering from this gaffe, Cain declared himself to be the "economic guru" of the new corporation, stating he could go toe-to-toe with Romney's corporate credentials. "I didn't succeed in business by taking over companies and firing everyone -- I actually delivered a tasty pizza to your table, which I doubt Mitt Romney is even capable of doing. Say it with me: nine... Nine... NINE!"

The biggest shock was Cain's closing line, where he stated "I will also be in charge of outreach to women in the campaign, going forward." An audible gasp rose from the crowd when he announced this, because (as usual) nobody could tell whether he was "just kidding" or not.

The press release handed out to reporters after the press conference ended stated: "It just makes sense -- none of us on our own may be able to beat Mitt, but all of us together will be an unstoppable political force. We thank the Supreme Court for making this historic candidacy possible."

It further went on to state that, after winning in the primaries, the corporation would change its name to "Anybody But Obama, Incorporated," for the general election campaign next fall.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

44 Comments on “"Anybody But Romney, Inc." Announces Presidential Bid”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hahahahaha. makes sense to me. after all, corporations are people. mitt said it himself.

  2. [2] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    The primary focus of the article is what I've been harping on for some time: after the constant stream of negative press from right wing to right wing, how can anyone not already supporting Romney is going to be a transformative voter?

    I don't doubt that they (TP et al) will vote for him (except maybe for RP supporters), but the R's can't win without the enthusiastic support of the TP troops. Sheesh, even Erickson when he was giving up wanted to go back to HUNTSMAN -- not Romney. The $$$ doesn't matter. How are they going to translate this antipathy into boots on the ground?

    'Tis a puzzlement.

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    -- that thingy in the National Archive

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    Ah, c'mon, you're spoiling my fun.

    :-)

    To everyone else -

    OK, I just answered all comments for the previous week! Woo hoo! So go take a look to see my responses...

    And, once again, I'm touched by your support vis-a-vis the pledge drive, just had to say that one more time...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    Ok that was funny but I have to quibble one point.

    Newts history with women shows he is NOT a "masterdebater" when things get tough at home. :)

    Of Course I could go all mundane and say how Citizens United was only a decision limited to Speech but did not infer person-hood.

    to quote the opinion "Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.

    When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. "

    The joining together of people in a corporation does not make the Corporation a person for first Amendment rights, but the individuals who make up the body of the corporation do not lose THEIR right to free speech by mere association.

    On the other hand it would be fun if they ran together as a corporation just to watch the Birthers Heads explode.

    What a certificate of inc is not a BC long form? And has the Corporation "attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

  6. [6] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    Dang I was to slow in typing and DWS beat me to it!!!!! GRRRRRRRR

    I did write My birther thing without seeing his comment lol

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    tinsldr2 -

    Oh, foof. Lighten up!

    :-)

    That's my response. Although your Newt point was well taken.

    Heh.

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Hawk Owl wrote:

    Well, I hardly dare add anything. I must say this reminds me of what original and sly humor can do to balance us when things get out of whack. As Mark Twain said long ago, contemplating evil in his time: "our only really effective weapon is laughter."
    Actually, I'd been wondering recently how many more candidates might get into the GOP slate; they've been averaging a new favorite every 3.4 weeks which leaves room to make an even dozen (Newt might protest that they need an "odd" number) and, of course, we could retroactively include Donald Trump . . .

  9. [9] 
    db wrote:

    Chris,

    You missed the part where ABR, Inc. denied a Vice President would be needed as with seven shareholders, there's no need.

    Since the White House is too small, ABR, Inc.'s Headquarters is going to be in the entire Shoreham Hotel. This will not increase the deficit, said Cain, as the White House is to be turned into the Ronald Reagan Museum, though Rick Santorum gently lead Cain away when Cain started talking about being a real "hands-on" President.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all knock this Corporation As Person meme...

    But think of the plus side of it..

    You can SUE a corporation as if they were a person..

    If not for that, you would have to find and sue each and every individual person in the corporation that had a hand in your case. From the lowly janitor to the highest CEO..

    This, in turn, would make lawyers even more obscenely rich than they are now..

    Plus it would mean that the 99% (the ones ya'all claim to support) would be even MORE unlikely to be able to redress grievances thru the courts..

    In other words, be careful what you ask for..

    But hay... As I said before, I am more than willing to support any regulation, limitation or restriction ya'all want to place on Corporations.......

    As long as the EXACT SAME regulation, limitation or restriction is placed on Unions...

    No one wanted to go there, the last few times I mentioned it..

    I wonder why?? :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    , "but for all important decisions, we will rule as a group, with each person having an equal vote."

    I think the Oowzers have proved conclusively, unequivocally and without doubt that running things (country, protest, a war, the world) by committee is the worse possible choice...

    Ironic, no?? That the GOP would try and adopt a page from from the Oowzer playbook...

    I know, I know.. It's fantasy.. But it's still fun to contemplate.. :D


    Justin Long: "I just wanted to tell you that I thought a lot about what you said."

    Tim Allen: "It's okay, now listen..."

    Justin Long: "But I want you to know that I'm not a complete brain case, okay? I understand completely that it's just a TV show. I know there's no beryllium sphere..."

    Tim Allen: "Hold it."

    Justin Long: "no digital conveyor, no ship..."

    Tim Allen: "Stop for a second, stop. It's all real."

    Justin Long: "Oh my God, I knew it. I knew it! I knew it!"
    -Galaxy Quest

    As an aside, it took me several years to make the connection between the name "Galaxy Quest" and "Star Trek"... I mean, I realized right off the bat that the whole movie was a parody of Trek, but I didn't make the connection of the names until years later..

    Galaxy -- Star

    Quest -- Trek

    Dummy me! :D

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You can SUE a corporation as if they were a person..

    A really rich person with a full legal department...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    A really rich person with a full legal department...

    As opposed to a BUNCH of really rich people with full legal departments... Except of course for the guy at the bottom who has squat...

    So, under the corporation is not a person rule the only guy who gets the shaft is the guy at the bottom..

    How is that any better than things are now??

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can SUE a corporation as if they were a person.

    Actually, I don't believe you can. Part of the initial impetus for creating corporations was to distribute liability to the corporation instead of any one person at the corporation.

    Hence, limited liability corporation.

    So yes, you can sue a corporation. But you can't sue it as if it were a person :). I believe the rules are different.

    DISCLAIMER: What was said, was said from memory. If anyone has more info on this, please post. Unfortunately, I don't have time to research this morning.

    It's a very interesting topic though.

    -David

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The $$$ doesn't matter. How are they going to translate this antipathy into boots on the ground?

    Well said, DF. It's the conundrum of the current GOP (and Democrats for that matter too).

  16. [16] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Acadjian,

    You can sue a corporation pretty much as you can sue a person (except that since corporations are always bald, you can't sue them for the way they cut their hair -- re: MrClean). However, the non-corporate assets of the people behind the corporation are not liable for action (usually). Exceptions can and have been made in cases of fraud.

    Essentially it is accepted that the stockholders of a corporation are not responsible for the actions of the corporations because they generally don't have anything to do with the operations of the corporation. This makes perfect sense if you look at GM, Westinghouse, Boeing, ...

    Some specialized corporate entities have been created primarily to handle the distribution of funds generated by a business. In these cases, the holders of the entities ARE liable for their actions, but since the actions are strictly fiduciary, it doesn't matter (once again, except for fraud).

    LLC are designed to expose only the assets of the corporation to adverse outside influences. Thus, if you initialize an LLC with $100K, its like you were a bank that lent the company that money. YOU are only out 100K if the thing goes belly up, or gets its ass sued because it caused pimples in teenagers (once again, except for fraud).

    I'm sure I've gotten several of the details wrong, but in general the gist is correct.

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Thanks, DF. That sounds about right.

    To me, it seems like there's pros and cons to corporations and the trick is to strike the right balance.

    Will need to ponder this some more.

    -David

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    To me, it seems like there's pros and cons to corporations and the trick is to strike the right balance.

    That's kinda been my point..

    The Hysterical Left (no one here, by the bi) screams and whines about corporations being legally considered a "person" but don't realize that part of the reason this is, is to PROTECT the little guy....

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    A corporation cannot be a "natural person". Among other things, the principals in corporation of any sort have the absolute right to disolve the corporation. And many have done so. If corporations are "people" then this is murder, pure and simple.

    If you wish to extend the principle of free speech to collections of people, fine, do so. But corporations as natural people is just a lie. And people who use the term in that manner are liars. Like Mitt Romney.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Romney is a "liar" than any eco-fanatic who ever uttered "Trees are people too" or any PETA-fanatic who ever uttered "Animals are people too" are just as much "liars"..

    Isn't it more likely that all of them were speaking euphemistically, rather than literally??

    Don't MAKE me bring out that "Exact Words" episode of THE BRADY BUNCH!!! :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    DF,

    Obviously, corporations are not people.

    Help me understand though what the issue is with them being treated as people under the law.

    You've indirectly brought up one point, Citizens United. I think your argument might be that a corporation can spend a helluva lot more than a person could on an election. And this undermines our representational Democracy.

    Is this correct? What other issues exist w/ treating corporations as people under the law?

    -David

  22. [22] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    It isn't so obvious to me that corporations are not considered people by the Supreme Court. The history of corporations includes some very strange rulings. For instance, it wasn't always obvious the a corporation COULD be disolved by the princpals.

    "In 1790, John Marshall, a private attorney and a veteran of the Continental Army, represented the board of the College of William and Mary, in litigation that required him to defend that corporation's right to reorganize itself and in the process remove professors ... . The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the original crown charter provided the authority for the Visitors to make changes including the reorganization."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Corporations were created to enhance the ability of associations to accrue capital to be used for furtherance of profit or capital accruance. This definition goes back several hundred years, and is not defined in US jurisprudence. Its more like common law.

    Its not worth a discourse on the sociopathic behavior of most corporations. Simply stated, they have no conscience. It's so simple to find socipathic actions by corporations that it doesn't need to be done here. Those same actions are supported by apologists who make the (somewhat accurate) claim that corporations are only for making $$$. They want to have it both ways.

    And this Supreme Court is willing to let them.

  23. [23] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Totally off the subject, but the funniest thing I've seen in months:

    http://freakyhumor.blogspot.com/2008/09/dude-i-think-your-wifes-found-out.html

  24. [24] 
    LewDan wrote:

    DerFam,

    Your point that "it is accepted that the stockholders of a corporation are not responsible for the actions of the corporations because they generally don't have anything to do with the operations of the corporation" illustrates the illogic of corporate person-hood under Citizens United.

    The Supremes are trying to claim restrictions on corporate speech equates to restrictions on the free speech of shareholders who typically have no involvement with either corporate speech or its content (and may not even have civil rights under the constitution being foreigners.)

    Apparently purchasing stock involuntarily transfers your civil rights from you to the corporation.

    Chris- Hilarious!

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've indirectly brought up one point, Citizens United. I think your argument might be that a corporation can spend a helluva lot more than a person could on an election. And this undermines our representational Democracy.

    Using that reasoning, someone like Bill Gates can "can spend a helluva lot more" on an election than you or I which would, in turn, undermine our representational Democracy..

    It's a slippery slope ya'all are traveling down...

    Of course, if Corporations supported Democrats like they support Republicans, Democrats would be defending the Citizens United ruling to the death... :D

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There are about a million and a half incorporated businesses in the US. There are currently 412 billionaires. Who is on the slippery slope?

    Of course, if Corporations supported Democrats like they support Republicans, Democrats would be defending the Citizens United ruling to the death... :D

    Actually, I don't think that is true. Corporations usually support both parties at the same time. The last presidential election had a very similar list of large corporate donors, many giving to both candidates. Of course they gave more to who they thought had the better chance of winning/doing better in the polls. Something I expect to see again in 2012.

    If corporations did not support the republicans would they still support the Citizens United ruling ideologically?

  27. [27] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Michale --

    I've been involved in organizing and politics since 1967.

    I didn't take advantage of immoralities for political gain.

    I don't take advantage of immoralities for political gain.

    I won't take advantage of immoralities for political gain.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Actually, I don't think that is true.

    Yea, come talk to me when Democrats refuse all corporate donations..

    If corporations did not support the republicans would they still support the Citizens United ruling ideologically?

    Probably not.. Just as, if corporations supported Democrats more than Republicans, Democrats would support the CU ruling ideologically..

    You seem to think Democrats are better than Republicans, yet offer absolutely NO evidence to support such a stance...

    Whereas I can offer MOUNDS of evidence to support my position..

    DF,

    I didn't take advantage of immoralities for political gain.

    I don't take advantage of immoralities for political gain.

    I won't take advantage of immoralities for political gain.

    Good for you...

    Now, if you were an example of the typical politician, then this country would be better off.

    You ain't so it's not...

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    dsws wrote:

    Once a corporation has paid out money to its shareholders, that money is gone and can't be recovered if it's found to have been obtained by fraud, theft, whatever. So you can sue a corporation, but if you win too big you'll find you've won against an empty shell that just spent all its money paying dividends or buying back stock.

    At least in the case of gigantic financial firms that stand to receive bailouts, the dividends should be paid into escrow, from which they can be recovered in the event of a bailout.

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Apparently purchasing stock involuntarily transfers your civil rights from you to the corporation.

    Now that is interesting! I didn't know that was part of the ruling in Citizens United. Seems tenuous at best to me. Especially since the opinion that speaks is the opinion of the corporation, not the individual shareholders.

    In popular culture what I see happening is that Democracy used to mean "one person, one vote". But in the world of people like Ayn Rand, it's money that should be free. So, for example, someone like Rand would not object at all to 1 person spending a billion dollars to influence an election. To make it really absurd, let's say it's a school board election.

    This is the type of "freedom" that many are fighting for these days. It's a very different meaning than what progressives usually mean when they say freedom. Meaning Democratic freedom.

    I point this out because conversations between liberals and conservatives are often funny because both sides are talking about two completely different things. And neither side realizes it.

    What progressives are trying to say is that concentrated capital produces its own type of tyranny against Democratic freedom. Witness the recent events in NYC

    Of course, if Corporations supported Democrats like they support Republicans, Democrats would be defending the Citizens United ruling to the death... :D

    They do support Democrats (as well as Republicans). Pretty much they own the system. And that's the problem.

    -David

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    They do support Democrats (as well as Republicans). Pretty much they own the system. And that's the problem.

    It's a problem for everyday Americans like you and I..

    It's only a problem for the Democratic Party because corporations like Republicans more than Democrats :D

    If the roles were reversed, the Democratic Party would be supporting Citizens United tooth and nail and Republicans would be whining and crying that "It ain't fair!!!"

    And every day Americans like you and I would still be getting the shaft...

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's a problem for everyday Americans like you and I.

    Come join us then, Michale!

    And every day Americans like you and I would still be getting the shaft.

    True. Until we quit playing the Republican/Democrat game and do something together to end the money in politics.

    The first step my friend is this realization. Heck, I'd love to fight with you, instead of against you on something as you bring to the table many skills I lack.

    We're still not quite sure how we're going to do it, but there's been a lot of good steps taken lately.

    For instance, my bank was pissed when I closed my account. The teller had to bring out the bank manager. I told him I was tired of the bank trying to charge me fees and trading in risky derivatives using my money. He offered to waive the fees and this made me really mad. So you mean, you've really been charging me $40 a year on my IRA when it could have been waived if I'd of bitched loud enough? Sayonara US Bank.

    Just think what could happen if we all spoke up? Or is that what you're afraid of ... :)

    -David

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Come join us then, Michale!

    Naaw, ya'all back the people who are part of the problem, NOT part of the solution...

    You can't tempt me wi..... BEER!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

    Just think what could happen if we all spoke up? Or is that what you're afraid of ... :)

    In cases like that, I totally agree with you. I am having a similar battle with my mortgage company.. Unfortunately, Obama seems more concerned about helping ritzy Fannie and Freddie clients than he is about helping the REAL "little guy"...

    The issue between us is that you see Democrats as part of the solution.. I see them as part of the problem...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The issue between us is that you see Democrats as part of the solution.. I see them as part of the problem...

    Who's talking about Democrats?

    Come join us! Even if us is just the people on this blog talking about ending the influence of money on Washington.

    And even if it's just for this one issue (getting the money out of politics)

    And ... BEER! :)

    -David

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    And even if it's just for this one issue (getting the money out of politics)

    And ... BEER! :)

    OK, now yer just playin' dirty!!! :D

    The problem with getting money out of politics is that we really have no real power...

    We select candidates and elect them to office based on their promises of a better tomorrow.

    Then we find out that either A> their promises of Hope and Change were just a bunch of BS... or B> they were spineless and gutless and seduced by The Dark Side...

    Then we ask them to cut off their own supply of money and perks and they just laugh at us all the way to their Cayman Island bank accounts...

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Then we find out that either A> their promises of Hope and Change were just a bunch of BS... or B> they were spineless and gutless and seduced by The Dark Side.

    Hahahahahah. Had to laugh at this.

    So there's some new ideas that I've heard recently. One was this ...

    Make donations to campaigns anonymous. This way, no one will know who is donating to their campaign.

    Technologically, it's possible.

    One interesting idea ...
    -David

  37. [37] 
    dsws wrote:

    In popular culture what I see happening is that Democracy used to mean "one person, one vote"

    It never meant that to me. City council elections where you vote for up to four candidates are no less democratic for having it be one person, four votes. Deliberation to consensus is democratic, if no one can pressure anyone else to consent. It's completely unworkable in most circumstances, but that's a separate question from whether it's democratic.

    Btw, if you capitalize Democracy in the middle of a sentence, traditionally that would refer collectively to the supporters of the Democratic party: one aristocrat, collectively the aristocracy; one Democrat, collectively the Democracy.

  38. [38] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Akadjian,

    Like the Supremes themselves you seem to think corporations are physical people. There is no "opinion of the corporation." There are only opinions of the handful of people who manage the corporation.

    Corporations are government constructs which identify groups of people engaged in a common enterprise. The first amendment does not protect corporations, it protects the U.S. citizens and residents who make up corporations. Restricting corporations does not restrict the ability of corporate managers to speak as individuals, it restricts their ability to speak on behalf of shareholders whether those shareholders support the opinions expressed or not using the shareholders own money.

    If each individual shareholder wants to contribute individually the huge corporate political outlays would still be possible, even with corporate restrictions. What was restricted was the ability of corporate managers to appropriate other people's money to express their own opinions essentially mandating shareholder contributions regardless of the shareholder's wishes. That does in fact usurp the rights of shareholders. Last time I looked purchasing stock did not convey a proxy for political speech.

    Apparently you, like the Court itself, indiscriminately mix corporate person-hood the metaphor and corporate person-hood the actual physical fact interchangeably even though only one is actually true.

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Like the Supremes themselves you seem to think corporations are physical people.

    LewDan- Those are your words, not mine. I believe I said "Obviously, corporations are not people."

    Please, there is no outside the text.

    Now I'd be interested in following up with you with some questions as you seem to have some interesting thoughts (I self-admittedly stated I was trying to understand the issue better and asked the group), but if you're going to put words into my mouth I'd rather spend my time talking with others.

    So I'll ask: Are you interested in helping me understand and in turn perhaps helping others as well?

    If so, I'll ask. If not, no worries.

    -David

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    City council elections where you vote for up to four candidates are no less democratic for having it be one person, four votes.

    You've got me on a technicality

    I should have put in an asterisk with a 1-page disclaimer in 4 point font :)

    For the record, I should have also discussed how we're not a direct democracy but rather a representational democracy and the entire workings of the electoral college.

    Thanks for the note on capitalization. That's always been one of my weak points.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Akadjian,

    I've no desire to misrepresent your words. My point was that corporations having opinions or speech of any kind is only literally true if corporations are really people as in distinct living entities. The Supremes to recognize that corporations aren't really people and yet they claim corporations enjoy first amendment protection for speech that can only exist if corporations are people.

    They also bestow those protections without regard to the restrictions real flesh and blood people face with regard to constitutional protection. As I said the first amendment only applies to U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. The people who comprise corporations need not be either, even if the corporation itself is registered in the U.S and is technically a U.S. corporation.

    I apologize if I've offended but the distinction between corporate management positions which we commonly refer to as corporate opinions, the actual opinions of the people who comprise the corporation and the nonexistent opinions of the legal fiction which is the actual corporation itself is key to the Courts bait-and-switch constitutional theory.

    People do not invest in corporations so that those corporations may speak for them politically. Corporations do not seek shareholder votes on their political contributions (and even if they did not all investors have voting rights.)

    There is no rational basis to believe that corporations have first amendment rights to remain free of government regulation. Its government regulations that create corporations in the first place! And there is no constitutional objective served by protecting corporate political speech. Allowing management to use investors funds to promote their own personal views dilutes the ability of everyone else to have their speech heard, including the corporations own investors with contrary opinions, exactly the kind of thing the first amendment is intended to prevent, not facilitate.

    As for helping you to understand... I'm no legal scholar I can only offer my own opinions and understandings.

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You seem to think Democrats are better than Republicans, yet offer absolutely NO evidence to support such a stance...

    What is "better"? I think Democrats have a much better chance of proposing, supporting and voting for legislation I agree with over republicans. In the end that's the only thing that really matters. I'll take a sleaze ball who will vote the way I want over the the most stand up guy in politics who will vote the opposite. I don't think either party is a more moral player of the game of politics. There are individuals of both parties who are savage sleaze balls and there are individuals of both parties who are absolute stand up guys. Most are some where in between.

    Someone I once worked with gave me his political theory. I don't 100% believe in it but the older I get the more I appreciate the wisdom:

    Both parties are exactly the same. Therefore always vote for the more entertaining candidate.

    Whereas I can offer MOUNDS of evidence to support my position..

    That would be good. I still have yet to figure out what exactly your position is...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is "better"? I think Democrats have a much better chance of proposing, supporting and voting for legislation I agree with over republicans.

    Yet, there is NO evidence to support such a claim and mounds of evidence to disprove the claim..

    I still have yet to figure out what exactly your position is...

    Simple..

    Politicians suck.. Doesn't matter whether they are Democrat or a Republican..

    All politicians suck..

    Seems to me to be a very simple position backed up by tons of data...

    Michale....

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @LewDan

    Agreed. Apologies have been swamped at work and haven't had a chance to respond. My interest lies in figuring out a succinct way to explain to the average person why Citizens United was a bad decision for our country.

    Still working on this, but what you wrote helps! Hope to respond more when this project is over.

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]