Display:
Of course, the charter authority has massive powers over a corporation, its just that with state chartering of national corporations there is a flight to charter in the states with the laxest chartering requirements.

But the Constitution confers the national government the right to regulate interstate commerce, and that would include a power to tax the sale of corporate shares when the transaction crosses state boundaries.

There is some tax rate at which corporations will incorporate with national charters, no matter how lax the charter requirements of Delaware or North Dakota.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Dec 11th, 2009 at 09:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The federal govt. has the right to override the states in terms of defining what a corporation is.  Should the fed state that corporations do not have the rights of an individual it would not matter which state they chartered in.  The failure to properly tax corporations is one issue but the failure to regulate their "speech" is another one entirely.  I can live with corporations prospering in their shady way so long as their direct influence on the political process is limited, much the same way we have marginalized Catholicism and other religions historically.
by paving on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 05:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Should the Federal COURTS state that corporations do not have the rights of an individual, it would not matter which state they chartered in.

However, even if corporations have the rights of an individual, they are still bound by their charter.

If under their charter they cannot make political contributions, its off the table.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 08:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah interesting point.  Note that charters can also be revoked fairly easily, certainly for the types of crimes we've seen on a regular basis.  Politically that has absolutely no momentum although the idea is out there in the real US left.  It bothers too many people, the idea of the government deciding that a business can no longer exist.  Yes, ridiculous, but such are the circumstances.
by paving on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 03:56:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, revoking a charter is a government action - it seems as if suing a corporation for behaving in a way that violates its charter is something that anybody ought to be able to have standing for by simply holding a share of the company stock ... and of course any rival candidate candidate would also seem to be a party affected by the action.

Given that any political contribution to any candidate will piss somebody off enough to search for somebody who held that company's stock at the time of the action and is willing to sue, it seems as if getting the prohibition into the charter would have a lot of impact even in the fact of later government passivity.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Dec 13th, 2009 at 01:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series