What did the Founding Fathers really think about corporations and their rights?
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
–John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787)
Does this sound like a man who intended to give corporations, a legal fiction whose life exists only on paper, the right to free and unfettered speech?
The reality is that the Founding Fathers didn’t think very much of corporations or, for that matter, any of the organized moneyed interests that played so large a role in the decision to revolt against Mother England.
To understand this, it is important to understand the nature of corporations during the days when the United States was founded.
The modern corporation dates back to the early 17th century when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. During that time, corporations were small, quasi-government institutions chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. Not unlike today, the idea behind these organizations was to bring together investors interested in financing large projects, such as exploration. Indeed, many American colonies were originally governed by corporations, such as the Massachusetts Bay Company. We all know how well that went over.
The English monarchs kept a close eye on these organizations and did not hesitate to revoke charters if they didn’t like the way things were going. However, as the money piled up in these corporations, they began to take on increased political power.
Which brings us back to the The East India Company, the dominant corporation of that era.
Thom Hartman writes in his book, “Unequal Protection”,
Trade-dominance by the East India Company aroused the greatest passions of America’s Founders – every schoolboy knows how they dumped the Company’s tea into Boston harbour. At the time in Britain virtually all members of parliament were stockholders, a tenth had made their fortunes through the Company, and the Company funded parliamentary elections generously.”
Clearly, the Founders did not think much of these corporate entities and the corruption they produced in parliament. Still, it never occurred to the Founding Fathers to directly address corporations in America when they wrote the Constitution. While we can only speculate, it is not hard to understand why this would be the case. The Constitution speaks to control of government by the people…for the people…and of the people. Why would it even occur to the Founders that a corporation would ever be perceived as one of ‘the people’? History makes clear that they viewed these entities as forces that preyed on people (see The Boston Tea Party.) Indeed, but for a legal determination made in a perverse Supreme Court holding in 1886, who would rationally see a legal entity as a person? Is a trust a ‘person’? Does it eat, breathe, etc.?
Still, since we are forced to speculate, there is evidence of how the Founders, and the society they created, viewed these legal entities.
After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals.
Do any of those attributes and limitations apply to people? Neither the Constitution nor laws of any governmental entity ever limited our lifetimes to a set period of time, never required that we trade in only one business or commodity, never attempted to limit our ability to buy shares in a variety of companies and never limited how much property we can own, or for what purposes.
Clearly, the society created by The Constitution did not see people as the same as corporations or vice-versa.
But here’s the biggie. Back in the early days of the nation, most states had rules on the books making any political contribution by a corporation a criminal offence.
Indeed, so restrictive was the corporate entity, that many of early America’s greatest entities were set up to avoid the corporate restrictions. Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust.
Not surprisingly, as corporations grew larger and their shareholders wealthier, they began to influence the rule making process that governed corporations. Using the money they had accumulated, they began to chip away at corporate restrictions. Eventually, corporations were permitted to go on forever. Where shareholders had once been personally responsible for the actions of the corporation, modern corporations shield them from liability. And as more money became involved, the politicians who regulated them grew increasingly seduced by what the wealthy corporations could do for them.
This history is what makes yesterday’s decision by a Supreme Court dominated by alleged strict-constructionists dedicated to giving full force and effect to the intentions of the Founders so … odd.
Reading the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, one has to say that it is a very well written and persuasive argument. But when I read the minority opinion written by Justice Stevens, it is equally as persuasive.
At the end of the day, this entire question is about who, as a ’speaker’, is entitled to First Amendment protections.
Justice Kennedy, and the majority, believe that the criminalization or restriction of a corporation’s right to express itself via political contributions is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Justice Stevens, and the minority, believe that a corporation was never intended to be defined as being capable of being a ‘speaker’ as it is a legal fiction.
Based on the history and a rational reading of the Constitution, it seems clear that Steven’s argument carries the day. Yet, his was the minority point of view.
And it’s not just the Founders. Since we rarely go wrong when listening to the words of Abraham Lincoln, here is what he had to say-
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
If we’ve learned anything this past year, as we’ve watched corporate special interests shape both the debate and the outcome of the pressing issues of the day, corporations already control federal policy. Up until now, more corporate money has gone to the financial support of lobbyist who use that money to influence the outcome of legislation to the benefit of their corporate sponsors. By permitting these interests more latitude in the election process, it might simply result in ‘transferring’ the expenditures to the front end of elections rather than the back end. If corporations have already bought their elected officials by providing the money to get them elected, they may then spend less in lobbying because the vote will already have been paid for.
What the Court ruling highlights is that there can be only one solution - government funding of all federal campaigns. Until we force our elected officials to take private money out of politics, this problem is not going away. The Congress has the ability, even in the face of yesterday’s court ruling, to legislate full government finance of federal elections. They always have. It’s simply a matter of forcing them do the right thing.
I would add that yesterday’s Court decision sheds light on one other important matter. The conservative forces on this Court are not about preserving the intent of The Constitution despite their pretense that this is their mission. We saw it last week when they stepped in to tell a local District Judge that he could not broadcast the Prop. 8 trial in California challenging the California constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage. For the first time in history, the Court issued such an order interfering with the procedural and administrative process of a local court. Now, despite clear and convincing evidence that the Framers of the Constitution would have strongly disapproved of their actions, the Court has greatly expanded corporate rights in the nation’s elections.
This is a Court with a mission of activist change – not Constitutional preservation. While that may please the more conservative elements of our society who think it is time to pursue a more conservative court agenda, none of us should pretend that these are people who desire a strict enforcement of the our founding principals and documents. They don’t. They have something entirely different on their minds.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar, Billy McKee. Billy McKee said: What did the Founding Fathers really think about corporations and their rights? http://bit.ly/4qXwyF [...]
We the Corporations of the United States, regardless of funding sources, in order to form a more perfect collectivist-fascist Plutocracy, pervert Justice by limiting liability, insure economic Hegemony, provide for the common defense of our markets, promote our latest Products, and secure the Blessings of steady dividends to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this case:
http://witgunandstein.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-corporations.html
Someone should send every member of Congress that Lincoln quote.
Great article, Rick!
Bravo! Mr Ungar your article is one of the best I have read concerning the Supreme Courts ruling on corporate political spending. I am puzzled how such learned judges can give individual rights to a inanimate obect. Your argument that corporations only exists as entites because we allow them, is the meat of this issue. Nowhere does it read in the constitution, “we the corporations”. To believe our Supreme Court, corporations then are granted all the rights that individuals have. How Orwellian is this?
Thank you, Michael.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, good article, but I did want to address your mention that the founders did not restrict corporations in the Constitution. We fail to distinguish the difference between the Federal and State Constitutions. While the Federal generally addresses interstate and international issues on behalf of the States, the State Constitutions deal with Intrastate or domestic issues within the State. Within the body of each State’s Constitution you will find an article dedicated to restricting Corporations and Banks that operate within that State. Afterall, it is a State that a Corporation has to charter with in order to even exist in America. While Banks and Corporations are to be restricted and regulated, the people should be free to determine their own destiny and purpose without interference from government.
In response to another comment. See in context »The founding fathers took up arms against the government they did not like…end of story, period.
Teachers,police, firemen like corporation…..that is where all the dollars in their inflated pension checks come from….
State and local governments run retirement systems for these folks which in turn invest all the tax money we give them for their retirement into wall street, foreign markets, and real estate….that is over 2500 government run retirement systems across the usa having over $3 trillion invested….
Every single dollar in the monthly pension checks of pour teachers, police, and firemen come directly from big corporate profit without exception
California has 61 state and local government retirement systems
Pennsylvania has over 900
Rick,
Brilliantly stated.
I hadn’t considered the impact on Lobbyist, disintermediation. This could be one way to get rid of lobbyist. Just cut out the middleman and create a more efficient market for buying elected officials votes.
On a similar note the Supreme Court seems to be ruling more for “Moneyed Interest” then actual law abiding citizens. I am thinking Kelo v. New London. As I am sure you know, Eminent Domain case where a communities homes where appropriated, not because of infrastructure need or blighted area (My understanding as to what it is commonly used for), but to tear them down, sell the land to a developer to build, to create higher Tax Revenue. As an FYI if you did not already know, the homes were torn down, the land cleared; the development failed or is on indefinite hold, so it is now a giant vacant lot, serving no one’s interest. I believe in California you passed Prop. 99 to protect yourselves from that sort of thing, as a number of other states had to do also.
If we believe “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” then what if one or more Justices were on the take, senile, arrogantly lost touch with the common man? Just what could be done, given my understanding that these are lifetime appointments?
My only thoughts are that we could dust off some version of Roosevelt’s “Court Packing scheme:
“On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent to Congress his Judicial Reorganization Bill. It called for adding one justice to the Supreme Court for every member over 70 years of age, up to a total of six additional justices. The size of the court is not fixed by the Constitution but is set by Congress in Judiciary Acts and has varied from 6 to 10 members.”
Probably not politically feasible or desirable, even with bipartisan support to add an equal number of litmus tested justices.
Just at a loss as to what we could do if we do have, or will have justices that are no longer capable of seeing us as a country, of, by and for the (Actual) people, as opposed to corporations (“Legal fictional” beings).
1. Yes – tax revenue generation as a legitimate community interest to invoke eminent domain is insane.
In response to another comment. See in context »2. FDR didn’t do very well packing the court and, as you note, it surely wouldn’t go over well in this day and age!
While I agree with the ideas in your article I think the Lincoln quote is a misattribution. They seem to be a paraphrasing of comments made in a speech at Madison Square Garden in New York on August 30, 1906 by William Jennings Bryan accepting the Democratic nomination for president.
He lost too. Ah well.
hehicera-
I don’t believe it is a misattribution. Here are a few more citations for it that support Lincoln as the author:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=185149
In response to another comment. See in context »sbiefeld.com/tag/abraham-lincoln/
therefoundingfather.blogspot.com/2009/12/federal-reserve-bank-greater-threat-to.html
Like hechicera, I appreciate your well considered response to the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, I too have doubts about the authenticity of the Lincoln quote. About a year ago, I tried to verify this one myself, and ultimately decided it was bogus. Here is one of the best sources I still have lying around:
Getting Wrong with Lincoln
http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/1999/101599a.html
The crazy thing about trying to verify this quote is that if you search for it, you will get WAY more hits citing it as real, than you’ll get hits claiming it is bogus. At this point, I’d have to go source original documents myself to be 100% sure, but I suspect this is one of those times it is important to consider the actual information source, not just the volume on the Internet. I’ll definitely bet on a web site co-directed by UCLA and Yale history profs., over anything written by an unknown Ron Paul supporter. (I don’t mean to bad mouth Ron Paul, but most unfortunately, a lot of his supporters really are group think zealots.)
BTW, note that Pinsker skewers Reagan for bogus Lincoln quotes too.
On a separate note, I’m afraid I’m not as optimistic as you are that government campaign funding is going to be any kind of long term cure — maybe not even a help. What we would be saying then is, “Congress members need to put their self-interest aside and think about what is best for the country, while Blankfiend and the rest of the banksters can be as ‘virtuously greedy’ as they want. They are just being good capitalists, don’cha know… God’s work.” It is naive to think such a system can last, and I predict it will never happen. Congress members, like it or not, are pursuing the “American Dream” /as we have let it be defined by Wall Street/. Targeting politicians narrowly — insisting they live up to a moral standard that is artificially high in the overall social context — is like mowing weeds without going after the root system.
Also, FYI, Jim Hightower wrote a great piece on exactly this subject way back in April, 2003. Almost 7 years ago!! You should read it.
http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/664
In response to another comment. See in context »I will read it. Thanks!
In response to another comment. See in context »So, since we can, at minimum, say that the authenticity of the Lincoln quote is highly in doubt, don’t you think it would be a good idea to revise the article now by removing it? I find one sentence in the Pinsker “debunk” to be very compelling:
“Admittedly, nobody dies from a bad quotation, but without question
the historical record suffers still more damage during an era when
credibility is already hard enough to come by.”
While you’re at it, I beseech you to include some reference, or at least an end citation to the Hightower piece. I just read it again, and am amazed at how timely it is. Never mind the fact that the guy deserves props, this issue is huge. As great and important as your piece is, I think it is critical to make people aware of all the good thinking out there. In fact, here’s another link you ought to consider referencing:
SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!
In response to another comment. See in context »http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/scotus-foreign-corporations-have-rights-too
The latter part of the quote seems to be from a letter that was a forgery.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp
”
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”
Your quote picks the first couple of sentences from there.
The first part is the paraphrasing of William Jennings Bryan in 1906.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
Probably used by the person that forged the letter to Elkins sometime after 1906.
Bryan’s quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=LysWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=bryan+despotic+than+a+monarchy&source=bl&ots=zr6ggL1JiE&sig=MC2mKnf0c2PbuOGPYz_EDrHw0GU&hl=en&ei=wnBaS9iQC4-Vtge3sfmuAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bryan%20despotic%20than%20a%20monarchy&f=false
Hopefully that long link will work, should take you to the right part of Bryan’s speech.
The part: “I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy”
seems to most often be attributed to an 1865 address to Congress, (NOT the forged letter), but it is nowhere to be found in his second inaugural address.
This part appears to be just made up of whole cloth and one place tracks it’s origins to about 1941.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Money
Seeing as the quote you used is an amalgam of three separate quotes, with two different pedigrees (and both disputed), I’m keeping my money firmly on “misattributed”.
I still agree with your points. They can stand on their own just fine quote or no quote.
In response to another comment. See in context »My link to the misattribution sources, link to the text partially copied and pedigree info on the quote seems to have been eaten by the moderator!
Do you think it was the exceptionally long url to the google book that had Bryan’s original quote? I’d hate to break a comment thread unintentionally.
In response to another comment. See in context »Excellent article. While this Lincoln quote may or may not be his, the Cooper Union speech definitely is. And in that, Lincoln does as you did, goes back to the original authors of the Constitution and proves that the majority did not believe as the Courts of Lincoln’s time said they did. You are in good company.
Yes, the United States of Money. Too bad that, for so many on the left, the threat of public school prayer has pushed the corporate takeover of democracy to the back page. This should be our wake-up call in that regard, yet I don’t anticipate “Gawd”-bashing giving way to genuine outrage over this latest Supreme Court sell-out. I really don’t.
If rage was going to happen, it would have occurred long before now.
savio – Hasn’t it been a very long time since prayer in public schools was a hot button issue?
In response to another comment. See in context »Not on the Internet or on MSNBC, where church/state separation issues are treated like the chief issue facing our democracy. This is thanks in large part to neo-atheist best-sellers like “The God Delusion.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Loved your post, by the way!
In response to another comment. See in context »school prayer? come be my guest in South Carolina!! they are still ticked that school prayer was removed from public schools.
didn’t you know America was founded on “Christian Judeo principles??”
(snark/ — it’s hard living in SC.)
thanks for your comments, Mr Ungar.
In response to another comment. See in context »Superb article, Rick – best I’ve read in the past year. Bravo!
What a nice compliment. Thank you.
In response to another comment. See in context »Excellent article.
The decision of the court raises some other issues:
-The rights, such as freedom of speech were given to citizens who are restricted by their mortality. Corporations, although initially limited, now can last eternally, meaning their rights never expire.
-A corporation can be American but managed by a foreigner. If this corporation is involved in politics is it doing so in America’s best interest?
-What if the corporation is a foreign company with an American branch (toyota, vodafone, sony, etc). Which countries interest will it serve by participating in America’s electoral process?
Many more questions will arise with the next electoral cycle.
All very good issues and points. . Clearly, foreign interests own shares (often control) of important and wealthy American corporations and can steer the expenditure of corporate funds in political matters. L
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, this is a great analysis! I hope this ruling is the wake up call Obama and Congress need to start taking back the power granted to corporations. I think the GOP leaders who put this Supreme Court together should now be put on the defensive with a concerted effort by “we the people” to answer for this ruling and not let a day pass without asking this question in some national forum. We cannot let this opportunity to turn the tide pass without an all out battle. We must win now or the corporations will own us forever.
In response to this Supreme decision lots of stuff is bubbling up on the Internet. One idea that resonates is corporation as psychopath: amoral, unbridled self-interest (unbridled = deregulation plus “citizen” status protections); manipulative, glib, and superficially charming (marketing/advertising); has a distorted sense of the potential consequences of actions (profit being only motive/evidence Exxon AIG health insurance providers), and so on. And some claim the corporation will now be able to make all its fellow citizens (us) over in its own image … yay
I’m not sure if this is the best argument against, as I know to many people who meet the very same definition you attribute to corporations…amoral, unbridled, etc…. and they get to vote. It isn’t a question of personality, corporate or otherwise, it is a question of whether a legal fiction should be given the same ’speech’ rights as actual people.
In response to another comment. See in context »I did go off subject some. Sorry. The metaphor tickled my fancy. I should have at least started by saying thank you for your post. I tend to head for your name first when I see new material on T/S; you always say something that gets me thinking … and you did so again this time.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rocky – that is high praise indeed and very much appreciated.
In response to another comment. See in context »“One idea that resonates is corporation as psychopath….”
Idea? As in, concept? Or, to use a pop phrase, meme?
Well, let’s see–pension plans dropped, older workers pushed out, jobs shipped overseas, stagnated pay (facilitated by the tyranny of “pay bands”), little or no sick time, and so on. Workers, in other words, treated like slave labor or something next to.
Not an idea. Reality. And, depending upon one’s values, a highly immoral reality. Your take?
In response to another comment. See in context »That is directly from the 4 year old documentary The Corporation. Everyone should watch that.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] What did the Founding Fathers really think about corporations and their rights? Rick Ungar explains [...]
[...] What did the Founding Fathers really think about corporations and their rights? Rick Ungar explains [...]
A great and thought provoking article.
If our truly polarized nation can, at least, rally around one cause, it should be to get the money out of politics. Both sides have to come to the realization that this tit-for-tat, back and forth battle of the fund raisers is just an exercise in watching the pendulum swing. In 2000, it was W and his Rangers, in 2008 it was Obama and his fund raising prowness. Does anyone really believe that the corporations really care about what the progressives, the tea party crowd, the conservatives, the religious right or the radical left care about? The corps only care about their vested interest, which is maximizing shareholder value.
A hypothetical-if a corporation could terminate their entire workforce and the work done by the labor force be outsourced to Mars, why should we believe they would not do so in a New York minute? The corporation’s obligation is to the shareholder-no one else. If today, the GOP candidate is in their best interest they support that candidate accordingly. Tomorrow is another day. Anyone who feels different is delusional.
The problem with this decision is that it the ignores the reason free speech is important. Free speech is a fundamental part of a democracy because it allows for the free exchange of ideas. People should be able to say what the think, freely. What they think is influenced by their reality, what they experience or hear about as they go about their lives. And they are free to form and express those opinions unfettered by anything other than how they wish people to perceive them. (this is simplified, obviously.) And those opinions may or may not influence other people. Therein lies the difference. Corporations and other legal entities don’t think. What corporations can express (or do for that matter) is restricted to what is in the best interests of the shareholders. They can’t start with one position, absorbed information, apply reasoning and then form an opinion. Even if the decision makers of the corp. do that and decide, for instance, their businesses practices are hurting people, they cannot express that to the public if that will hurt shareholder interests. In fact they could be obligated to actively suppress and discredit that information – even if the humans in charge disagree. This is what the free speech provision is meant to protect against. A powerful entity – church, state – limiting what a person can say.
This decision did not strengthen the free speech – it just gave more power the few entities left in a democracy that are legally obligated to suppress it.
This undermines the free exchange of IDEAS that is fundamental to democracy.
Corporations can be a positive force or a malignant one. Wagging your finger at bad values in action does not address anything other than the manifestation of the deeper problem of men giving up moral values.
Don’t give me the corporations are impersonal greedy things. They are propelled by managers and stockholders and as such reflect their values.
Don’t look any further than the wanton disregard for basic universal spiritual values in individuals in our country for our corporation’s actions.
The founding Father’s didn’t need to address corporations as their intent was to create a nation based upon these greater values.
Values that we have lost sight of and as a result, we have become like the corporations we once chose to rebel against.
I don’t know if you actually wanted to comment on this post or just state an opinion that is related, but not on point.
I make no value judgments regarding corporations in this piece. The issue here is not whether corporations are good guys or bad guys – they issue is what whether or not they should be treated as ‘people’ for First Amendment purposes. And what the framers intended is very much the issue- particularly when you have a Supreme Court where the majority professes to be strict constructionist and moderate versus activist.
In response to another comment. See in context »I believe all evidence points to the fact that, within the four walls of the Constitution, it was never contemplated nor intended that the rights would be extended in this way.
I bear no ill-will towards corporations. I have a corporation and I’m invested in quite a few. But I don’t believe that my corporation has a vote nor do I think my corporation is capable of ’speech’, free or otherwise. Thus, by using the First Amendment as a way to extend unlimited political donation rights to legal fictions, I’m of the opinion that this Court decision has subverted the intent of the Constitution under the guise of attempting to uphold it.
I actually did want to reply to this posting.
Wagging your finger at bad values in action does not address anything other than the manifestation of the deeper problem of men giving up moral values.
I would add to this the same would apply to the Supreme Court’s actions.
It seems that everyone is trying to figure out how to “fix” they problem. Here we see your approach. In the Supreme Courts actions, we see their approach.
What I have found in life having lived with many people of totally opposite views on life is that they are good people trying desperately to do right. Sometime violently trying. In the end it will not be the strongest or the smartest argument that will find the truth.
Our Founding Fathers had a wisdom that was used for many years as a default mode of life in our country. People more than less did the right thing based upon the values that are reflected in the Founding Fathers’ actions.
Since 1945 we have had a slide into a belief that “We” can fix it. I call this the culture of the Mind. In The Mind we have right and wrong and pretty much we can make it up however we like. We don’t restrict our beliefs to rigorous scientific study. That is how we now have a more divisive right and left with each side believing in their own rightness as determined by their Mind.
Our Founding Fathers’ belief was that wisdom came from a greater place. This was the miracle of their action. And as long as it remained the default belief in our country we grew as a “Spirit” that others were attracted to. Our secular slide has turned the more than less on its head and our country is not a place to revere for its Spirit but for its advantages and stuff to be had.
In response to another comment. See in context »Corporations, Supreme Courts, politicians and pundits will only reflect this lack of wisdom.
blackdog – it’s not that I necessarily disagree with anything you are saying, I’m just having a very hard time following its relevance to the post. Maybe you can be a bit clearer in what you are trying to say. For one thing, I don’t think I’m wagging my finger at anyone. Beyond that, you’ve kind of lost me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Adlyn-
Don’t you think you are obsessing a bit on the source of the Lincoln quote and missing the point of the piece?
Were this piece to be about Lincoln and his statements, I could see your point. It is not. Meanwhile, there seems to be more authority that he did say this than authority that he did not. Frankly, it is completely off the point.
That said, I do endeavor to be completely accurate at all times. If you can provide me with true evidence of someone else to whom I can credit with the statement, I’ll be happy to do so – although it won’t change the thrust of the piece one bit. In the meantime, I am going to leave it because I find more authority in support than in objection. While you may have turned up a ‘doubter’ I continue to find much more that indicates that he did say this.
With respect to imploring me to add something, I really don’t write that way. There are, no doubt, many interesting comments on this subject out there. I would recommend that you write your own piece and focus it on the Hightower piece as this is of great interest to you, which is terrific.
While, as you can see, I welcome and respond to as many comments to my pieces as I can, if I were to re-write every article based on what a reader would like to see added, I would never get on to any other subjects.
Adlyn-
Since you got me wound up on this, I looked further into Pinsker’s basis for his argument.
He’s got it completely wrong. His argument is based on the idea that Lincoln supported corporate and moneyed interets and, therefore, would never have said something like this.
Mr. Pinsker does not know his history as well as he suggests.
There was a reason for Lincoln’s statement- which I am becoming more convinced that he actually said.
At the time of the Civil War, the Union was relying on the European bankers to the loans to pay for the war. The banks, thinking they had Lincoln by the proverbial short and curlies, got carried away, asking the Union to pay interest in amounts ranging between 24% and 36%. Lincoln, understandably, got angry. This is what led him to his remark. While it turns out that he was not referring to American bankers, that does not change the message of what was said, no matter whom it was intended for.
I find it hard to understand how you would interpret anything I said in my comments as a suggestion that Lincoln would have argued with you on this issue. I certainly hope he would have agreed with the core arguments in your piece, and feel pretty confident he would have. I didn’t like the snide part of Pinsker’s piece claiming to have unique insight into Lincoln’s mind either. In fact, if you want help digging up 100% authentic Lincoln history in support of your piece, shoot, I volunteer to do some leg work! I detest the idea that Lincoln would oppose your perspective.
That doesn’t change the issue of journalistic accuracy and integrity. Yes, an incorrect quote attribution isn’t going to kill anyone — Pinsker said so himself. That’s just one of many reasons why you certainly shouldn’t feel bad about printing it initially. And yes, the quote itself is only tangential to your main point — which is why it should be all the easier for you to correct. One doesn’t need to invoke Lincoln to be right about this issue! But I am disappointed that, when presented with pretty solid evidence that the quote is actually one of those weird zombie rumor things, you choose to just leave it. That would not fly at the New York Times.
I am baffled by your assertion that I need to somehow come up with “someone else to whom [you] can credit the statement.” That isn’t how these things work. In reality, someone says something that someone else hears, who says something similar…. A few years from now, someone else is going to print the attribution with a link to you as “source,” just like you “cited” ronpaulforums. Sure easy for you to shrug it off, but meanwhile, over at FOX News, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are saying the same thing to themselves. If that’s the way the game gets played, we lose. You say you are a fan of Barack Obama. Well, if there is one thing he can be really praised for it is re-setting an example for executive accountability. “My mistake,” he has had the courage to say on several occasions. That alone is an important step in the right direction for this country. Man up and follow the example, so you can set an example for the rest of us.
With regard to other references, here is a link to the book that I suspect hechicera tried to cite in his first post questioning the quote authenticity. (I probably wouldn’t have even said anything about this if you hadn’t dismissed him. So I find it amusing that you think I’m “obsessing.”)
Subject and Strategy, by Paul Eschholz, and Alfred Rosa
http://books.google.com/books?id=aqOn5tPsNXwC&dq=intitle:subject+intitle:and+intitle:strategy&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&cd=1
(Unfortunately, I can’t find the relevant pages on the web anymore because Google changed the access policy.)
This is a book on how to be a journalist. I do not have a copy in front of me, but my records say that there is a section in this book that calls out the Lincoln (mis)-quote as an example of potential journalistic mistakes. Section summary: Be careful how you use the web for research!
I agree that if you don’t want to give Jim Hightower due credit, that’s your prerogative.
Finally, my userid is adyn, NOT Adlyn. And why is your reply so far away from my post?
In response to another comment. See in context »The way the page is built there is limited opportunity to continue the chain, which is why it had to be so far from you post.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not suggesting that you have said that Lincoln would disagree with the post. I’m saying that with so much authority supporting that these were his words-plus the information I dug up regarding why he said these words – it seems to me that these were, most likely, his words.
I find it hard to understand how you would interpret anything I said in my comments as a suggestion that Lincoln would have argued with you on this issue. I certainly hope he would have agreed with the core arguments in your piece, and feel pretty confident he would have. I didn’t like the snide part of Pinsker’s piece claiming to have unique insight into Lincoln’s mind either. In fact, if you want help digging up 100% authentic Lincoln history in support of your piece, shoot, I volunteer to do some leg work! I detest the idea that Lincoln would oppose your perspective.
That doesn’t change the issue of journalistic accuracy and integrity. Yes, an incorrect quote attribution isn’t going to kill anyone — Pinsker said so himself. That’s just one of many reasons why you certainly shouldn’t feel bad about printing it initially. And yes, the quote itself is only tangential to your main point — which is why it should be all the easier for you to correct. One doesn’t need to invoke Lincoln to be right about this issue! But I am disappointed that, when presented with pretty solid evidence that the quote is actually one of those weird zombie rumor things, you choose to just leave it. That would not fly at the New York Times.
I am baffled by your assertion that I need to somehow come up with “someone else to whom [you] can credit the statement.” That isn’t how these things work. In reality, someone says something that someone else hears, who says something similar…. A few years from now, someone else is going to print the attribution with a link to you as “source,” just like you “cited” ronpaulforums. Sure easy for you to shrug it off, but meanwhile, over at FOX News, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are telling themselves the same thing. If that’s the way the game gets played, we lose. You say you are a fan of Barack Obama. Well, if there is one thing he can be really praised for it is re-setting an example for executive accountability. “My mistake,” he has had the courage to say on several occasions. That alone is an important step in the right direction for this country. Man up and follow his example, so you can set an example for the rest of us. Even an, “I might have made a mistake,” would be OK in this case.
With regard to other references, here is a link to the book that I suspect hechicera tried to cite in his first post questioning the quote authenticity. (I probably wouldn’t have even said anything about this if you hadn’t dismissed him. So I find it amusing that you think I’m “obsessing.”)
Subject and Strategy, by Paul Eschholz, and Alfred Rosa
http://books.google.com/books?id=aqOn5tPsNXwC&dq=intitle:subject+intitle:and+intitle:strategy&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&cd=1
(Unfortunately, I can’t find the relevant pages on the web anymore because Google changed the access policy.)
This is a book on how to be a journalist. I do not have a copy in front of me, but my records say that there is a section in this book that calls out the Lincoln (mis)-quote as an example of potential journalistic mistakes. Section summary: Be careful how you use the web for research!
I agree that if you don’t want to give Jim Hightower due credit, that’s your prerogative.
Finally, my userid is adyn, NOT Adlyn. And why is your reply so far away from my post?
In response to another comment. See in context »I neglected to say this in my post above but thanks for your excellent and thoughtful analysis.
A slight nitpick but I think the Dutch formed the first corporation.
Actually, I didn’t mean to imply that the British East India Trading Company was the first corporation – rather the first of what is considered the modern era of corporations. Corporations had actually been around a couple hundred years before the British East India Trading Co. Indeed, there was a Dutch East India Trading Co. that came before the British version. There were also corporate entities in Germany..and who knows where else!
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for the clarification. Good post.
In response to another comment. See in context »What do you think the chances of a 28th Amendment passing?
“The rights of personhood shall be constrained to human beings”
(You can tell I’m not a lawyer)
Unlikely. Not that it could not be an amendment- it could – its just easier to deal with by legislation. The process of passing an amendment to the Constitution is a pretty big deal. I doubt there would be the stomach for it. But…who knows?
In response to another comment. See in context »This decision is odd indeed. The pretense and disingenuousness is easy to spot. Some of the fallacies that have abounded lately include:
1 Suddenly, conservatives are gravely concerned about free speech.
What’s truly disturbing about this decision is that it exposes our highest court–our Supreme Court justices–as being disinterested in justice. It’s a mockery of the word “justice”.
Free speech is a justice issue. There’s an “axis of concerns”, with “truth and justice” on one side, and “wealth and victory” on the other. Conservative ideology lies to the extreme of the “wealth and victory” side of that axis. The only time conservatives show interest in justice is when an injustice is done to them (meaning that it threatens their “victory-orientation”), or when they can use justice-sympathies to game the system, and achieve victory that way. Because their main focus is on winning, they’re often the ones doing the oppressing and creating injustice. To them, having an injustice imposed on you is synonymous with “losing.” It’s what you do, not what you let be done to you.
2 This ruling will benefit unions as much as corporations.
The idea that unions have as much money and influence as corporations is so laughable it’s sick to suggest it–except, of course, for rhetorical purposes. Watch some TV sometime. How many ads from corporations did you see? How many ads from unions? In whole regions of the US, the presence of unions is so low as to be virtually nonexistent. We’re talking about orders of magnitude difference in money, power and influence between corporations and unions.
3 The Constitution doesn’t specifically say corporations aren’t persons, so the Founders must have meant for them to be treated as persons.
This is an example of attempting to make a case by trying to proving a negative. So the Constitution doesn’t spell out that free speech is only for actual people. It doesn’t spell out that voting is for individual people either. Should we allow organizations to vote?
Neither does the Constitution distinguish between single people and married couples, law-abiding citizens and criminals (at least as far as free speech is concerned), humans and animals, or a host of other possibilities. Does it really need to spell out every possible situation?
The Founders never had any thought other than that they were referring to individual people. Anything else, and we should expect that they would have said so.
What’s perhaps most bizarre about this is that the same people who are most pleased about this Supreme Court decision are also those who usually claim to champion “individual freedom”–and who resist and decry impositions of collective will, reflexively referring to them as “socialist” or “communist.” Funny how money changes things..
4 This is an automatic victory for corporate interests.
Not necessarily. What it is, is a victory for bias and obfuscation. It’s also a recipe for corporate dollars (remember where they get those from?) that are not being spent now, to be wasted on political activity.
Those who fear upcoming corporate campaigns of Swift Boat-style misinformation and disinformation, also forget that the proponents of those campaigns are the same people who most vociferously think movies like Avatar have an overtly political message–with which they disagree. If they want to start a war of “visual shock and awe,” let them. They’ll never know what hit ‘em.
a question, if an individual or group of individuals running a business chose not to incorporate but otherwise had all the same attributes as a corporation (i.e. ran a business, accumulated wealth, had a point of view) it would be fine if he or she or they espoused the same views as a the corporation would have? in which case, those views would be fine but if they chose to incorporate they would not?
John – you are basically describing a partnership arrangement. A partnership is not a legal fiction – as is a corporation. It’s partners are individually and serverably liable for their actions. And, yet, free speech has not been specifically confirmed for partnerships.
In response to another comment. See in context »John Ayers:
The #1 reason people incorporate is to take advantage of the protection it provides corporate officers from personal liability. Upon incorporation the corporate executives are no longer personally liable for personal, emotional, legal and financial injuries incurred by a purchaser of the company’s products and/or services.
So, a corporation is a legal entity as *specifically opposed to* a human one. It is designated an entity for legal and financial reasons only.
The concept of “corporation as person” is bogus on its face. It results from our current orientation of being sympathetic with sellers more than with buyers. One aspect of this is that many people–including yourself and, apparently, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States–see corporations as nothing other than groups of people who have come together for a common purpose.
You can see this when, for example, you walk into a restaurant and signs with company logos are plastered all over the walls. Forty years ago, during the early stages of environmental consciousness, when our orientation favored consumers more than sellers, that would never have been the case.
You say that corporations share with individuals the attribute of having “a point of view.” Is this so? Do corporations have a single, homogeneous makeup, and therefore a single, homogeneous perspective? Or is it possible that, for example, the point of view of the front office can vary widely from the view from the shop floor, which might vary from the perspective of the IT department, which differs from the way the sales force sees things? When that’s the case, which point of view gets to be presented to the public and to candidates for public office?
“One aspect of this is that many people–including yourself and, apparently, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States–see corporations as nothing other than groups of people who have come together for a common purpose.”
“You say that corporations share with individuals the attribute of having “a point of view.” Is this so?”
Johnfrum -Whom are you addressing these comments to? Certainly I have not suggested the things you are attributing to “you”. Nor can I see anyone else in the chain of comments who has done so.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick: You can spot at the top of my post to whom specific comments were addressed (John Ayers).
In response to another comment. See in context »sorry…missed that!
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] 2 days agoWhat the Founding Fathers thought about corporationsRick UngarThe Policy Page2 days agoFrank Luntz's unwelcome entry into the climate change [...]
Like many of the readers, I found this is a bueatifully written informative and informed posting.
However, Mr. Ungar is incorrect that the solution is reforming the financing of campaigns. The solution is reforming the
campaigns.
We could have our elective officials chosen
by groups of about a thousand people–large
enough to be representative, unbribable, but
small enough that each candidate can talk to
each one.
We could go further and simply randomly select
our legilature as Ernest Callenbach and Michael
Philips proposed for the House of Representatives.
I posted more ideas and details at
http://uthreee.blogspot.com/2010/01/solve-campaign-finance-problem-by.html
I read your ideas at your blog site and, with all due respect, your ideas are nuts.
First of all, if I am not picked to vote, as your groups of 1000 will be “randomly” (no chance for corruption there, eh?) chosen, I will revolt. As an American who is of age and whom has not been convicted of a felony, I am entitled to vote- and I intend to do so. You want to turn democracy into one big polling operation. Shame on you.
As for not being bribeable, are you kidding? It’s a whole lot easier to bride 1000 people than an entire electorate.
And you want to randomly select our legislature? Tell you what, let’s make it really efficient and simply appoint a King. From then on, the descendants of the King can be the next king.
I’ve heard some out there ideas, but this might take the cake. If you intend to take my vote away from me and give it to a focus group, you’ll have to take it from my cold, dead hands.
In response to another comment. See in context »Nothing is new under the sun. As you may know, the schemes doctorleff proposes are essentially the way the republic of florence worked in the late 14th and early 15th century. I would remind the good doctor that Florentine “democracy” was thoroughly co-opted within a generation and completely obsolete within three. Even though they had elaborate schemes to ensure that the “voters” chosen were random – the Medicis quickly figured out how to stuff the ballot box.
In response to another comment. See in context »misterb-
In response to another comment. See in context »I love when I get to learn something! I had no idea that this is how it was done in the Republic of Florentine. Thanks for that information. Very interesting!
Well you’re welcome – I posted from memory and to give the Florentines credit – their republic lasted longer than ours has so far. It did have some serious ups and downs, and the Medici did corrupt it (and eventually depose it). But they threw off their Margrave in 1184, and the first duke of Tuscany was crowned in 1533. Still they had nothing on the Republic of Venice which lasted well over a thousand years.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’d like to submit a link that bears on Lincoln’s quote on the Banks being a greater foe
on his flanks…and some JFK getting similar blowback with Silver
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/central-banking-vs-repubic
(sic)
A couple of things:
I think everyone should contact their Congressmen and Senators and demand a yes or no answer to the question: Did the Founding Fathers think corporations should have First Amendment rights? No waffle room.
Here’s an idea I love, regardless of how wacky. You start to vote at 25, you stop voting at 66. As we all know, political influence isn’t just your single vote. Those who wish to be active in politics can do so at any age, (and serve in elected office) but the actual voting is left to a two generation spread which must consider both the long term and short term ramifications of their vote, once they lose the vote at 66. The way to make voting more valuable to people as an instrument of their social involvement is to make it more scarce. Age is the only fair way as it cuts across all other factors. We need to foster an electorate that takes seriously the responsiblity to plan for future generations.
Someday at precocious ten year old will sue for the right to vote, pointing out the unfairness of allowing a senile senior to vote and the arbitrary nature of the current voting age.
Kent-
I can’t say I’m wild about your voting idea. As someone no doubt much close to 66 than you, I’ll be damned if I’m letting anyone take away my vote when I hit that age! Believe it or not, most 66 year olds are not senile, yet you would appear to believe that an informed 30 year old’s vote is more valuable than a senior citizen who might pay attention to the issues.
Most presidents and the majority of senators are over the age of 66. Are you suggesting that they should be able to hold public office but not vote, or would you just say they are no longer qualified because of their age? Does the Constitution enter into your thinking?
Would you have us all killed when we hit 66 since there is, apparently, no value to societyo of people who reach that age?
As for the precocious 10 year old looking for a vote, that person may be free to sue, but that doesn’t mean they will win. Voting age is not determined by law suits.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, Rick, I’m 60. I would say you can run for office at 18 (Military age) until you are. oh.. 135. Yes, the Constitution does enter in.. or at least the historical context. You’ll recall that originally it was white, male landowners who could vote. The FF’s figured they were the one’s who would make choices based on some kind of vision for the future, rather than instant gratification. Yet we’ve trampled on the Founding Father’s sacrosanct wisdom by letting women and colored people vote. Age, I repeat, is the only absolutely fair way to cut across the demographic, create value through scarcity and create a sense of responsiblity and social status for those entrusted with voting.
I think you miss the point I’m trying to make. In now way am I suggesting euthanasia or that old people aren’t valuable, quite the contrary. What I AM saying is that after 40 years of being a “voter” I am better prepared (than a young whipersnapper) to serve in government because I’ve wrestled with the long term effects of political decisions as a voter. Those who chose not to serve can and would be more effective than their single vote working on campaigns, getting out the vote, etc. If I am passionate and dedicated, I can influence far more votes than just mine. The fact is, we are wiser.
Having a distinct period in one’s life when you were a “voter” is something akin to national service. And the 25 year olds are going to have to think hard about the world they will enter at 66 since they will be shaping it.
The idea is associated with the often quoted Native American notion of planning for seven generations.
I realize it would be impossible to institute but if I were starting a NEW country I’d include it in the Constitution from the start. I don’t fear the younger generation, I do fear the apathy and disinterest in civic responsiblity which gives us a political climate that is stalemated, where the loudest and shrillest dominate the discussion and we lurch from one narrow self interest to another.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The FF’s figured they were the one’s who would make choices based on some kind of vision for the future, rather than instant gratification. Yet we’ve trampled on the Founding Father’s sacrosanct wisdom by letting women and colored people vote. Age, I repeat, is the only absolutely fair way to cut across the demographic, create value through scarcity and create a sense of responsiblity and social status for those entrusted with voting.”
Kent – really? At the time the FF’s took this approach, African Americans were slaves and not considered ‘persons’. That is why they were denied the right to vote. When the slaves were freed, they became persons for purposes of the Constitution and, therefore, had the right to vote. Of course, many states sought to deny this right by imposing literacy tests that were only given to African Americans – not white people. They were tests that pretty much nobody could pass. This was not the intent of the FF. As for women, it was not the Constitution that denied them the right to vote – it was the states. It was a recognition of this fact, that women were, indeed, ‘persons’, that led to the amendment setting this straight and denying states the right to stop women from exercising their right to vote.
As for age as the prerequisite for voting, I think it’s just plain wrong. You’re best argument might be raising the voting age from 18 to 21 again if this is what you think is necessary to get sufficient maturity into voting. I think that would be wrong since, if someone can be sent to fight, they ought to be able to vote for those who are going to be doing the sending.
Voters within the age range you suggest are, by and large, as ignorant of the real issues in this country as the younger people. In fact, I would argue that there is a higher percentage of 18 year olds who understand the issues than a comparative percentage of 40 year olds.
You and I are pretty much the same age. You are not going to convince me that in 6 years I’m not going to possess the requisite competency to vote. What’s more, having paid into entitlement plans my entire life that begin to pay off at 65, how can you suggest that I should be denied the right to have something to say about all that just when I come of age where the debt to me is due?
And, by the way, the Constitution never denied women the right to vote – state laws did that. It was the recognition that this would not have been the i
In response to another comment. See in context »“Yet we’ve trampled on the Founding Father’s sacrosanct wisdom by letting women and colored people vote.”
Sorry Rick, I don’t know the emoticon for “tongue firmly in cheek” which is how that line (above) was intended. I’m a strong supporter of universal sufferage in fact, I’d be inclined to give pregnant women two votes. I think of mothers as “regents” for their little stowaways.
And again, I am not suggesting in the slightest that either of us, 6 years from now, will not “possess the requisite competency to vote”.
As to the debt being paid to you that comes due at 65, I’d suggest that is exactly the attitude that gets in the way of the long term vision that could make a healthy democracy. You and I all want to be sure we don’t get short changed on social security and medicare and what is “due” us. Everyone and their aunt from the tea baggers to the AARPers, from the reparations for slavery folks to the Mexicans who still have claims on the Alamo has a vested interest they will cling to even as the water tops the gunwales and we all sink together.
I’ve run this “40 years of voting” idea past a lot of people our age and I find the first reaction, like yours, is very defensive. A lot of those I’ve talked to find that upon reflection, that defensiveness disappates when they imagine this happening after they had been voting for 40 years and shaping their own future through that process.
Do I think it is possible or practical to implement? Of course not. But I’m eager to hear any suggestions which could link us across generations more effectively.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kent-
I did miss the attempted irony. Sorry about that!
I’ve actually given thought to your idea since you first posted your comment. I find that I still don’t feel comfortable with it. I am focused on how we can better educate the public so that they are more able to understand the real issues rather than the canards the politicians put in front of them masquerading as the real issues. But I do continue to favor voting rights from 18 on right up ’till the bitter end.
With respect to my comment about protecting the debt to me – I should be clearer. I actually think that that debt to me shouldn’t, in fact, be a debt. I’m a fan of making social security an actual insurance policy so that for those who need it when they get to retirement, it is there for them. For those who do not, it’s like insurance — you don’t buy automobile insurance hoping you’ll get into an accident so you can collect. I would like to see people hope they won’t need their social security because they will be successful enough to retire without it. But if life doesn’t work out as well, and you’ve paid in, you’re entitled to it. My point in this regard was that I should always be able to vote my opinion on this and other issues because they do affect my continued life as an American citizen. Hopefully, I would do so keeping in mind the impact and costs on future generations.
Good article-
Just a thought though- you said “it never occurred to the Founding Fathers to directly address corporations in America when they wrote the Constitution”, but I thought I had read possibly in one of Thom Hartman’s books(?) that Jefferson wanted to add some constraints on corporations (maybe monopolies?) directly into the Constitution but it was shot down early on.
Here’s an interesting quote of his: Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1816 letter to George Logan:
“I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country”.
Of course this was a couple of decades after the Constitution was made, but he felt the same way during it’s creation.
I have to correct myself-
I found in one of Thom Hartman’s books that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had the idea that a constitutional amendment was needed to ensure that the reach of corporations was limited. I’ve read about this in other sources but can’t remember the details off the top of my head. Needless to say, that idea didn’t get very far.
Michael – very interesting and thanks for that. If you ever come across the relevant info in the Thom Hartman book again, I’d really appreciate a reference to it. Thanks.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sure-
“We the People:A Call To Take Back America” by Thom Hartmann, Page 12: a very short description of Jefferson’s and Madison’s intentions to propose an amendment to the Bill of Rights in 1787 to “ban monopolies in commerce”, failed under the Federalist opposition of the Hamilton/Adams faction.
“Unequal Protection” by Thom Hartmann, chap. 4 is supposed to have quotes from correspondence between the two on this amendment, although I haven’t read that book yet.
Here’s a web article that refers to this amendment: http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm
I would love to know what the original source for these quotes are, maybe see a transcription of the correspondence, know what archive their held in,etc.
A relevant quote from Vin Ransel’s web article on corporate power and influence:
“Corporations have been a successful means to minority rule, because this form of property is a stunningly efficient means of accumulating and concentrating wealth, which is then translated into political power. >>>Democracy disperses power. Corporations concentrate power.<<< And property as power, accumulated in the hands of a few, inevitably becomes power over the majority."
How can I incorporate myself?, because I really want all the rights and benefits of personhood but no liability or responsiblity for anything I do. If a corporation can become a person than I should be allowed to become a corporation. Think of the tax breaks and government subsidies I could get. Wow, I'm liken this idea!
Good stuff. Thanks!
In response to another comment. See in context »I think Thom Hartmann mentions it in more than one of his books.
I know it’s in his “We the People” on page 12, just a small entry. I’ve heard that he has a fuller description of the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison on that amendment in his book “Unequal Protection” in chap. 4, but I haven’t read that book.
The proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights is mentioned on this website: http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm
I would love to know what the original source for this is and maybe what archive it is kept in.
Thanks
Sorry-
Posted this twice because my first comment didn’t post, so I did it again and now both are showing up on here, if someone could remove this last comment. Thanks
In response to another comment. See in context »There is a genuine legal argument to be made in favor of corporations having “free speech”.
But that is all there is. A strictly legal (not political, nor logical, nor moral, nor beneficial) argument, which as you point out, is counterbalanced by an equally good legal argument against corporations having “free speech”.
The really obvious implications of this decision (which once again, you do a great job of pointing out) is the clear light it throws on the nature of this supreme court.
They are activist. Not activist in the sense that “if I don’t like it, its activist”, but in the true sense of the word. They went out of their way to accept this case, and then went out of the way to submit a ruling that was unnecessarily broad. The case could have, and should have, been dealt in a much narrower scope by the court. This was quite clearly an attempt by the supreme court to not apply the constitution to the case, as they are mandated to do so, but rather, use this specific case to essentially change the intent of the constitution.
They are not constructionist. As much as they claim they want to follow the constitution, they are strictly for following their own personal beliefs. Scalia, in particular, never misses an opportunity to let the world know his beliefs…
[...] [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. [...]
[...] In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of America…. After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals. [...]
[...] keep us free from the tyranny of the big banks and they were very suspicious of large corporations.In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that corporations were very seriously restricted in the early days of [...]
Dear Mr. Unger,
I was catholic before I was born but solving a systemic problem with a crazy good abstract idea was not on my do list. A monk created pretzel logic to explain the Trinity. I worked for a Mechanical Contractor for 20 years. I had a galvanizing experience. A idea started formulating. My project delivery idea follows the path of a pretzel and creates a triangle. In order for my objective faith based dream to come true, I have to create a network. I am in the process of packaging my idea. Please visit my amatuer website in progress.
https://sites.google.com/site/contractorballleague/
You can steal all my abstract ideas. I am venturing into the unknown. The newest project delivery creation is IPD and the construction industry is leading up to 1857 tipping point. Reverse auction construction markets and the Civil Wars have a great deal to do with corporations. My crazy good project delivery idea is a potential health care solution. Please check out my website in progress. I think I came up with something wonderful.
Sincerely,
Richard Illingworth