Los Angeles Panders to Idiots Who Scream, "Corporations Aren't People!"

Uch.  How disgusting is this?

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is not the same as free speech.

First off, you can't overrule the US Supreme Court, bitches.

Secondly, if donating money is not free speech, or free expression, what is it?

This is what these idiots on the left always say: "Corporations are not people!!!"  Well, no kidding, but does that mean they're not entitled to protection under the law?  Because that's what this ultimately is about.  Leftist want to gain control of corporations (ie the means of production) and bring them under control of the state.

Let's take a look at how all this happened.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, (1886):

At the California Constitutional Convention of 1878-79, the state legislature drew up a new constitution that denied railroads "the right to deduct the amount of their debts [i.e., mortgages] from the taxable value of their property, a right which was given to individuals."^[1] Southern Pacific Railroad Company refused to pay taxes under these new changes. The taxpaying railroads challenged this law, based on a conflicting federal statute of 1866 which gave them privileges inconsistent with state taxation (14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18).

So, basically California was trying to tax corporations at a higher rate than people.  Does it not make sense for them to fight back? 

Does this "corporate personhood" really allow corporations to run rampant?  Let's take a look at the actual rights corporations have.

Wikipedia:

Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights that are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination.

Oh, so you mean they have weaker rights than individuals?  How interesting.  You would never know that from people who scream "corporate personhood" and "Glass-Steagall" as a solution to everything.

So, what are the actual problems?  Corporations need to be able to form contracts and can still be sued for anything they do wrong.

See, the real reason this issue has heated up is because people are crying about "campaign finance reform."

Folks, the amounts of money donated to political campaigns are really not sky high if you look at it (although it's true they've been increasing.)  However, if you limit how much people can spend, the incumbent will win virtually every time.

From The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform:

As we have seen in national politics, the era since 1970 has seen a steady increase in incumbency advantage.  That period has also seen a steady decrease in the real value of contribution limits in federal elections.  In other words, the federal experience suggests an inverse correlation between contribution limits (they went down) and incumbency advantage (it went up).

Yes, folks, if you decrease campaign contribution limits, you will probably increase incumbency advantage.  That's because the incumbent typically has a broader network of people to draw from.  Unless caps are removed, challengers typically can't raise close to as much money.  And if a challenger is able to raise as much money the incumbency advantage virtually disappears.  Those races are about 50/50%.


Many people also cry about the Citizens United case, which is ridiculous.  Let's take a look at what actually happened in the Citizens United case.


As this Reason video points out, 26 states already have laws allowing corporate donations to candidates. Has there been a collapse of Democracy there?



To get an idea of the types of activities that would have been barred if the government had its way in Citizens United, look here:



Citizens United has already been used to support the gay marriage in NY.  Not exactly the collapse the left predicted.

Oh, and don't forget, corporate designation as "people" allows for the corporate income tax, which I'm sure lefties love.