If the corporate "person" has all the rights of a natural real non-fictional human being, citizen, what answer would you give?My thoughts are three, first, to run for certain offices there are age limits so if you formed the corporation today, you'd have to wait.
Second, if you wanted your corporation to run for President, be certain it is formed in the US of A. Make it "Born in the USA," as the Boss sang, and the Gip alluded if not quoted. The "birthers" have made the point an indelible issue of their minds, and mouths; so we should not slip up.
Third, and this is the tough one, if you formed your corporation in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, could it run for President, since it's been jiggered that they can label their sweatshop clothing items "Made in USA."?
I understand the third point could be debated, since it's a "free trade" arrangement and not a true indicia of full citizenship; but when the Supreme Court of the nation published an opinion where a majority of the able and learned Justices said, "Money Talks," then how is a "free trade" arrangement of the kind under consideration less than citizenship - since it is talking money at its heart?
But then I suppose there are SCSU Scholars who could explain things to me, in simple as-used-on-Fox-News wording, and then I could understand. As with how the Minnesota Supreme Court should rule on unallotment in favor of Pawlenty, the Scholarship is behind that position, explaining why.
I guess I do have one further question in all this most recent judicial scholarship. If your message is "Money Talks" why take so many pages and words for the five Justices in the majority to say that? Are they paid by the word? Otherwise, it is as if they perhaps felt some motive to hide in rhetoric the gist of their thinking.
Finally, it makes good sense, for Mr. or Ms. Corporation, run directly and don't bother buying politicians where the risk always is they won't stay bought. The risk it's been a rental not a purchase.
________UPDATE________
My brother-in-law disputes things. Since a corporation can last "in perpetuity" and has no natural or predetermined limit on its age, time is irrelevant, and a newly formed entity need not wait over age limits applied to real people. Beyond that a French or German corporation, for example, could be naturalized or even reincorporated in the US and once so it would be unfettered - unlike Schwartzeneger.
I am not sure I agree.
________FURTHER UPDATE_______
My brother-in-law further asks, "Could we appoint a corporation to the Supreme Court, indeed, have we already?"
On reflection I could see advantages if we all were represented directly by corporations in both houses of congress. For example, since corporations are not constrained by time and place as are real persons, they would not need to adjoin hearings for a floor vote (or to go to the bathroom), and travel expenses for junketing would be nil since these are "creatures of statute" and not real individuals - meaning also, no worry about exploding underpants on an air flight, since they can be present at more than a single place and time, and can move and translocate in a non-material sense due to their Incorporeality.
Along those lines, could we have a corporation as Pope?
And do we already? (Incorporeality)
Final question, how might we foresee a Supreme Court made up of nine corporations ruling on the rights of natural persons to fund political campaigns and political speech?
_________SUGGESTED READING________
Norwegianity. Emptywheel. A couple of lawyers who think they know what they're talking about. Readers feeling they've trenchantly analytical links of quality to highlight, are invited to post them via the comments.
As citizens, are we not entitled to the best government money can buy? Seems so.
From Gary Gross' blog, info that the truly enlightened weigh in, here and here. We are blest. Unfortunately we must await learned analysis of this news, here, here, here and here. I am eager in anticipation. I expect there is waiting on this, on those fronts along with Newt Gingrich, to see in the next few days how cause and effect play out, that is, how the cash flow flows. Palin wants you to buy her book.
What jail do you put a corporation in, if it breaks criminal law? But - don't the rights, risks, and benefits balance?? There has to be some jail, somewhere ...
More reading, Joe Bodell, Minnesota Progressive Project: No noise about activist judges?
Joe, what really did you expect - fair and balanced thinking? Thinking vs. reflex?
More Joe, this link. Joe's on a roll. And you need not go as far as allowing corporations to vote, or hold office, the alternative being to allow sitting politicians to incorporate themselves, selling shares, and when a governmental issue arises to a voting stage, let each incorporated politician put it, outside of the halls of government, to a shareholder vote; the individual then going, in fairness, to the floor to vote the majority shareholder opinion. It would differ, somewhat, from how things are done now in DC. Possibilities are endless. With Full Faith and Credit, we in Minnesota could write our corporate law to give more political power to our incorporated entities - can you imaging the giant sucking sound in Delaware when all those firms would move their seat of incorporation to Minnesota? The filing fees alone with the Secretary of State could be adjusted so that Timmy P. could keep his "no taxes" pledge because the money would be flowing into here in wheelbarrows - at least until North Dakota or Utah undercut us. Never mind pigs flying, with this five-Justice majority, we could have unicorns, flying unicorns, spending as much as they like in our elections. Indeed, endless possibilities, when the Court majority says so. They could even write a hundred even two hundred page opinion, with dissent, that this guy is a Democrat.
________FURTHER UPDATE________
Wikipedia claims:
[Sen. Joe Lieberman's spouse, Hadassah Lieberman] has also worked for the lobbying company, APCO Associates, that had many pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations among its clients, as well as four major drug companies such as Pfizer. In March 2005, Hadassah was hired by Hill & Knowlton as "senior counselor" in the firm's "health care and pharmaceuticals practice." Hadassah's work with the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries has led to controversy pertaining to her involvement with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.
Remember that scene from Treasure of the Sierra Madre, "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"? The bandits said that and broke into shooting at Bogart and the other gold miners, aiming to steal the gold.
To discount the SCOTUS opinion's impact somewhat, can't you simply envision seeing the Lieberman pair, each with that same offensive smirk, saying,
"Corporations? We don't need no stinking corporations."