Display:
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