DCdictator
Highest Rated Comments
DCdictator24 karma
A lot of people are giving you pretty biased answers.
So in a legal sense Corporations are their own legal person, separate from the people who run them. This is important because if, say, your Toyota malfunctions and you want to sue for damages you want to be able to sue the Toyota corporation, but you can only sue legal persons. If Toyota weren't considered a legal person one would have to sue each individual shareholder for their portion of the damages which would take forever and basically be impossible. So corporations are literally considered legal persons.
Where the actual controversy comes into play is that the Supreme Court case Citizens' United basically said that corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians in the form of Political Action Committees (PACS), the reasoning being that they serve as a speech outlet for a bunch of people (also, a good point in favor is that certain corporations like media corporations basically already have unlimited speech, because they can just say what they want on air in the course of their business). There are a bunch of other interesting points to be made in this argument, and if your interested I would encourage you to read a synopsis, the decision, and dissenting opinions here The gist of the case is that Citizens United made a video about Hillary Clinton and wanted to pay for it to be made available for people to watch on Demand as well as some ads to promote that video. I personally don't agree with the decision, but it's an understandable and defensible conclusion.
"Corporations aren't people" is a catchy simplification of a larger, more nuanced argument. It easily captures the justifiable if not fully informed anger of people at the decision. "Corporations are people" was meant as a backhanded refutation of the first saying in that "corporations are legally considered persons" and "corporations are made up of people." It's actually a decent pun because Geico is just a collection of people but a guy named Tom is only one person. However, many people didn't get the joke, many more found the statement in bad taste whether they got the joke, and because Mitt Romney wasn't a very well liked guy still more just didn't want to laugh along with him.
DCdictator3 karma
For background, as a general rule Reps often pursue positions on committees that are of greater import to their constituents and also are more likely to receive donations from associated industries.
EXAMPLE:
A senior congressman from southern Mississippi Chairs the sea-power subcommittee, promoting a larger navy which in turn would create and protect jobs for the constituents in his district This rep is facing a tough reelection fight because of the changing political landscape and southern ship building unions and magnates who prefer to have someone with similar interests at heart at the head of the committee support and give money to him. A new rep, even if he had the same priorities, would not have the seniority or sway to snag that position and it would instead likely go to a different shipbuilding district.
This example actually played out in 2010, when Gene Taylor lost to Steve Palazzo to represent Southern Mississippi, and Forbes (VA) took over the helm of the Seapower Subcommittee.
DCdictator2 karma
Hey,
discovered Furry Dumb Fighter last week and then re listened to all your albums and had a great time. Your delivery sounds vaguely like Hedberg's is that a coincidence?
DCdictator63 karma
meh, as a straight guy I feel like I shouldn't. It seems like gay dudes already must have a hard time finding other gay dudes and I don't want to go into a place where people are tryna get laid not looking to get laid or even interested in what's being offered. That seems indecent.
View HistoryShare Link