Okay....except unions are not people, unless they are incorporated, then they become corporations who are people. Love your song. Maybe Not For Profit Corporations should start paying taxes on their accumulations....Catholic Church??? You could get US out of debit by paying property taxes!

Ah, so true. But shouldn't we also remember that sometimes people are corporations, too?

I used to be a Professional Corporation, but I got tired of calling meetings that I was always late to.

CB--unions are treated the same as corporations under Citizens United, and outspent biz interests in the last election cycle.

Wonderful!

I wondered when you were going to weigh in on Citizens United.

I read the draft Bernie Sanders constitutional amendment today. I don't think he realizes it would prohibit The New York Times from endorsing candidates or running editorials in favor of candidates. That's Bernie for you.

It also wouldn't have any impact on the factual situation involved in Citizens United--a non-profit that runs a political ad. Like Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, etc.

Constitutional law is always a game of be careful what you wish for, because the neutral principles of a majority decision are applied regardless of the political views, etc., of the next plaintiff to come along.

If only everyone were as lucky as those people! Love it!

I agree that the issue isn't as cut and dried as it seems, but the logic behind corporate personhood doesn't hold. Furthermore, regardless of legal niceties, a union is very unlike a corporation in that it is not a profit-making entity, nor is it a legal dodge devised to insulate its executives from harm.

If the majority of a corporation's stockholders aren't in agreement with the political contributions of the CEO, there is no democratic process by which the CEO can be removed. However, union officials are subject to election and removal for just cause by a majority vote of the member. It is rare, it at all, that ordinary shareholders get such a vote.

As I understand, in many, if not most cases, a CEO can only be removed by the board of directors, most of whom are chosen by the CEO and are likely to be in agreement with the CEO. In essence, this is the old feudal arrangement under which kings ruled with the acquiescence of the nobles, while the peasants hoped for crumbs from their table. That arrangement is hardly designed to promote democratic values.

If you don't like the CEO you sell the stock, or you acquire enough to put your people on the board. It's indirect democracy, just like voting for a senator to represent you in a legislature.

Having been both a union member for several years and a stockholder I'd say the individual has little ability to exert control at the executive level in either case. In each case I had a vote (on wages in the first case, on directors in the second) so there was a democratic process, but it was just one vote in the case of the union, while in the case of the corporation you can buy more stock if you want more control. As a union member I had a vote on some officers, but not others.

As for unions not being operated for profit, well--not for the profit of the workers at least. Last time I checked, the multiple of the union officials' salaries to lowest wage of hourly workers represented in for example the teacher's union was about 20 to 1. The guy who'd come out to our picket line when I was on strike as a printer always had nice suits, a nice car, and the obligatory pinky ring on his finger. We had ink under our fingernails, he had a manicure. That's one reason--in my mind, the main reason--why union membership keeps going down in the US.

People forget that Citizens United involved a non-profit--a non-profit folks on this site might not have liked, but the neutral principle has to work both ways. Imagine how people's views would have shifted if the FEC had gone after the Sierra Club for running an ad against McCain and the court had ruled against them. I think you'd hear a lot of howls about how unfair it was, how every voice should be heard.

Personally, I want everybody's voice to be heard, and that means the ability to pay somebody if you don't have time to do campaign work or a "stand out" (as they call them up here, where you stand out on the highway with a candidate's sign in your hand). Americans pay less each year for political ads and campaign expenses than they do for potato chips--potato chips can't be that much more important than government.

I came across an interesting historical fact the other day reading a history of anti-semitism/philo-semitism in England. The notion that money was speech and people should be able to use it to support candidates first arose when Jews were prohibited from becoming members of Parliament. They were allowed to support candidates for the House of Commons with contributions, and eventually they were able to get rid of laws that discriminated against them. Curious history, sort of like the fact that the first gun control laws were passed to keep weapons out of the hands of freed slaves.

only a few more songs and you can do an entire musical. I'm partial to mezzanine seats...center please!
:))) I'll be humming it in the morning and wondering the hell why! r

I've belonged to a union and also been a corporation. The union protected me (in particular ) from being taken advantage of on a workman's comp claim- so I have fond memories. As a corporation, I was personally insulated from business risk- Neither of these functions required that either the union or my self corporation be given the rights of a Human Being. (Natural Person)

I don't so much object to the incorporation of individuals, as I do to the fiction that such corporation enjoy the same rights as Human Beings-

I and many other T-Party/Libertarians have a revisitation of the "rights" of corporations high on our wish list. But, union, non profit, or for profit, the recognition must be that all corporations must play by the same rules.

God (nature?) created humankind, and by nature, man has Rights,

Man created Government, and it has or has not authority as decided by the people.

Government created/allows corporations, and is properly tasked with properly regulating them.

If you would examine the true beliefs of many T-party activists, you would find that this is their belief- Not unlike the beliefs of OWS. The problem is not Capitalism per se- the problem is a government which works hand in glove with corporations to insure the profit of both those in government and their cronies.

Want to hate a corporation that robs the helpless? hate Chase Bank, which administers Food stamps, and takes at least 10% of the funding for their efforts- maybe not too much to pay for good service, but since the client is the government, and not the recipient, the recipient is given 120 seconds and a "Gee, that's too bad, here's why were not responsible for helping you" by Chase's "Service" dept.
( I worked there for a year) Crony Capitalism at it's finest.

Yes, but have you ever heard Barbra sing "Look For The Union Label"? R

My point, such as it was, is that all three forms, for-profit corp, non-profit corp, union (local or national, organized as association or otherwise) do some good, some bad--like people, but it's unlikely we'll ever get rid of the convenience of the limited liability form. If we do, there will be no hospitals, no one will invest money in a business, unions won't be organized for fear of personal liability.

Marilyn wins!

Actually, Barbra is well-known for requiring her maids and other live-in help to keep their distance. She apparently orders them not to look her directly in the eyes. She doesn't want to be friends with such . . . people.

Limited liability is one of the main reasons for Incorporation, and is, if well regulated, a positive thing- what is more objectionable is that Undying corporations hold the patent and copyright for inventions and creations that have long since past the lifespan of the creators- and should have passed into public domain, as was the clearly stated intent of patents to begin with- etc- there is a tremendous advantage in competition given to corporations in competition with "natural Persons" in size and longevity alone- hence the need to distinguish the Rights of a natural person from the privileges of a corporation