Reddit reviews Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back

Actually they did. It has just been erroded over the history of the county.

After fighting a revolution to end the exploitation by corporations, our country's founding founders retained a very healthy fear of corporate power and put great restrictions on corporations and what they could do.

Most state charters contained very strict limits on corporations. They limited how long corporations could exist. They put strict limitations on the type of commerce they could engage in. They were not allowed to own shares in other corporations. The owners were held responsible for criminal acts committed by corporations. And government kept a close watch on how corporations were being run. They often revoked corporate charters if they were found to not be serving the public interest.

And perhaps most telling, they made it law that corporations could not make political donations. I repeat, in most states it was a crime for corporations to make political donations.

EDIT; Sources
"Essays In The Earlier History Of American Corporations." concentrates on corporations in the last two decades of the 1700s. Heavily footnoted and a good source. http://www.archive.org/details/essaysinearlierh01daviuoft

"Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartman provides some good early history. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporations-Became-People/dp/1605095591/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302207568&sr=8-1

Google search on "founding fathers on corporations."

Is Mr. General Electric Corporation's ownership of Mrs. National Broadcasting Company in violation of the 13th amendment?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m15OHYRU90ST0Z/

http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporations-Became-People/dp/1605095591

> But, with the first guy, do any of you know of any sources for the conditions of the Gilded Age that this person might accept as not being "socialist propaganda?"

We're going through a third Gilded Age. The first was the times of the railroads when divide and conquer were the plots of the day. The Courts thought that corporations were people. That being said, I know people have a problem with it, but Thom Hartmann, did research in how corporations became people. I've read Unequal Protection which helped to explain the Gilded Age in detail.

The second Gilded Age occurred in the 1920s to 1930s and the SCOTUS decisions of that time which were heavily conservative and undemocratic. I'm weak on references for it but I would suggest the PBS documentary "Slavery by another name"

And for the third Gilded Age? Well... We're living it.

US Money versus Corporation Currency (1912) - Alfred Own Crozier.

Peoples History of the United States. - Howard Zinn

Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Spectre of Inverted Totalitarianism. - Sheldon S Wolin.

The Nazi Hydra In America -- New America's right wing politicians are plunging the country into a fascist police state - Glen Yeadon & John Hawkins.

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America - Chris Hedges.

The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism - Robert A Brady

The Comming of the American Behemoth: THe origins of Fascism in the United States, 1920-1940 - Michael Joseph Roberto (2018)

Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back - Thom Hartmann (2010)

The Holy Reich - Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919-1945 - Richard Steigmann-Gall (2004)

That should give you someplace to start to form your own opinion.

I also STRONGLY recommended memorizing and applying reason against fallacies, especially appeal to prejudice and all of them on http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com AND https://yourbias.is

I gave you a link, I'm not going to name the thousands of companies that actively donate money to candidates. I don't' feel like "discussing" anything since you made such a hugely false statement.

>And lastly, political speech close to an election is possibly the most important form of free speech. Besides, we are constantly bombarded by endorsements from tons of major corporations anyway. If you are oppose the Citizens United ruling it necessarily means you feel comfortable with the government banning some speech. That means no more Paul Krugman op eds from the NYT during election season and no more HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

Advertisement speech is not afforded the same rights as free speech furthermore Free speech as it stood was the rights of individuals not corporations. It's a bastardization of those rights that has allowed for much of the politics of today.

>I know what the common retort is, we've all seen it here before. Its, "individuals have free speech, not corporations." To this I have two things to say. 1) Corporations are a protectorate and creation of the government. They are granted special limited liability status by our federal government, so if you have a problem with corporations per se, then you should rightfully have a problem with government shielding them. 2) Corporations, insofar as free speech is concerned, are nothing more than the collective voice of the people who own that corporation. If I own a video production corporation produces a movie that paints Mormons in a negative light, should the government censor my film because it may affect Mitt Romney's campaign?

The fears concerning the Citizens United Ruling are completely unfounded. In most states, the ruling changes nothing that hasn't already been going on.

See my previous comment about that. For further reading .. here

And here


Again you have a limited grasp on free speech rights. I assume you're unfamiliar with advertisement rights vs art since you brought up movies. You're also not familiar with free speech in regards to the a captive audience either I suppose?

regardless, The biggest issue everybody should have is foreign influence in elections, they're not allowed under our current system.

Since most of these companies have decided to become multinational. Their money is essentially tainted by foreign interests. Thus should negate any multinational companies from participating in our election process.

You may disagree which is fine but it's still the law, and I don't see how it's not being enforced.