RSS
Company Decides To Run For Congress
from the brilliant dept
Earlier this week, we jokingly pointed out that with the Supreme Court's ruling on how corporations were people, a company like Google could run for President. Well, it appears that others have the same basic idea. A PR firm in Maryland has announced that it's running for Congress in Maryland's 8th District and has put together a nice campaign ad:
I have a business...
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
I have an app...
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
I’m looking for research...
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
YES!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES!
The middle-men will never stand for it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think?
Most of the $H17 started as a joke.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Congress
If I was President Obama I'd be looking over my shoulder right about now. Hmmm... will Minnie be First Lady I wonder?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey wait...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait...
* Need to be 14-16 years to marry
* Cannot f*** startups
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait...
it would also have to be a citizen which corporations to my knowledge do not hold citizenship.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey wait...
Sigh, you know, I don't want to get too pissed off too early today (It's me birthday!), but the fact that our courts have ruled in such a way that your question even makes sense proves how retarded this whole thing has become.
Is too early to start drinking scotch?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The Neilds put something similar in their last newsletter. I couldn't tell if it was meant as a joke or not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
ha ha i love the onion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ha ha i love the onion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
We are registered at The Limited
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
The middle-men will never stand for it."
Exactly. The Lobbyists would end up suing to PREVENT this, since it would make them obsolete. Just like the RIAA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yep
I think he meant the middle-men were the politicians.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
My District
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A boon for loyal customerz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
ignorance of constitution
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ignorance of constitution
SCOTUS has already done that
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
yuck, yuck, yuck: the trouble is only Stevens' dissent refered to the theory that corporations are persons
The problem is that the majority opinion repeatedly referred to "corporations or other associations" and no where referred to the legal theory that corporations are legal persons.
The only reason the ruling is obnoxious is that the management of corporations has stopped working for their shareholders and started working for themselves (oh, for a generation of Jay Goulds, "The public be d*mned, I work for my shareholders"!), and without some reform, it would be the management of corporations using their shareholders' resources (remember corporations belong to their shareholders, folks saving for pensions, and so forth) to engage in political speech.
I suggest that Campaign Finance Reform v 2.0, besides requiring a heavy dose of transparency, require that expenditures by corporations or unions that either 1) explicitly or implicitly endorse or oppose a candidate running for public office or 2) engage in advocacy on an issue in contention during any election campaign be approved in terms of their purpose, their amount, and the venues of publication by a majority vote of the shareholders or members.
The majority opinion vindicates the free speech rights of corporations and unions as associations, meaning derivative from the rights of those associated, meaning the shareholders and members, not corporate managers or union bosses, who are, in the eyes of the law, fiduciaries for the shareholders or members, even if they all think of themselves as bosses and de facto owners.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Welp......
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The video
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
the video
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment