Corporations are people too, my friend.

A Bay Area man accused of a carpool violation is arguing that he had a second a person in the car with him: his corporation.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...iolator-says-corporation-counts-as-passenger/

Does he have a point?
Discuss.

In the article he's quoted as saying:

"Corporations are imaginary entities, and we've let them run wild," Friedman has stated, according to a San Jose Mercury News article. "Their original intent…was to serve human beings. So I'm wresting back that power by making their personhood serve me."

So, I don't think he actually buys his own argument. It seems more like a stunt, or trying to prove a point.

...considering his corporate papers can't drive, and the point of carpooling is to use less cars, I don't think they should give him a pass in the carpool lane. XD Otherwise his papers should just take the bus. :p

His point is that corporations shouldn't have personhood. When he goes to court (and inevitably looses his case) he's hoping that the publicity will instill in people some amount of anger or dissatisfaction with the idea of corporate personhood, which I assume he'd hope would help people push to get that notion changed.

The idea of corporate personhood is to make it easier for big money to suppress the people.

It's not about letting corporations have a voice - Because they already had a voice, it's called their CEO. It's about making it easier for corporations to use their larger reserves of money to outbuy, outspend, and essentially suppress the people so that they, the corporations, can make even more money... Sometimes at the cost of the average American.

Edit - What were the founding fathers words? Oh yes, 'We The People', not 'We the Corporations'.

Our country is about the collective ideals of the people, not the ideals of a collective.

Scarf said:

His point is that corporations shouldn't have personhood. When he goes to court (and inevitably looses his case) he's hoping that the publicity will instill in people some amount of anger or dissatisfaction with the idea of corporate personhood, which I assume he'd hope would help people push to get that notion changed.

Click to expand...

California Vehicle Code section 470 defines a "person" as "a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation." Section 21655.5, under which Frieman was cited, states that "no person shall drive a vehicle upon lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices."

Mr. X said:

The idea of corporate personhood is to make it easier for big money to suppress the people.

It's not about letting corporations have a voice - Because they already had a voice, it's called their CEO. It's about making it easier for corporations to use their larger reserves of money to outbuy, outspend, and essentially suppress the people so that they, the corporations, can make even more money... Sometimes at the cost of the average American.

Edit - What were the founding fathers words? Oh yes, 'We The People', not 'We the Corporations'.

Our country is about the collective ideals of the people, not the ideals of a collective.

Click to expand...

I agree that corporations and labor unions should have limits placed on their ability to influence elections. We had a ballot measure her in California last year called Prop 32, which would have done just that. Labor unions opposed it because it included them, and also contained a "paycheck protection" provision. I voted against it because it went too far by completely banning corporations and labor unions from donating to political candidates, instead of just limiting them.

I never understood corporate personhood. Why are they labeled that in the first place. In my opinion corporations have too much power and influence the govenment/elections too much.

FreakyLocz14 said:

I agree that corporations and labor unions should have limits placed on their ability to influence elections. We had a ballot measure her in California last year called Prop 32, which would have done just that. Labor unions opposed it because it included them, and also contained a "paycheck protection" provision. I voted against it because it went to far by completely banning corporations and labor unions from donating to political candidates, instead of just limiting them.

Click to expand...

A total ban is needed though.

This won't deny those groups a voice in government - the separate people that are a part of this group or corporation can still donate separately. All this does is prevent a single person, usually the CEO and/or leader of the corporation and/or union from using the resources of the group to suppress the ideals of the member.

Mr. X said:

A total ban is needed though.

This won't deny those groups a voice in government - the separate people that are a part of this group or corporation can still donate separately. All this does is prevent a single person, usually the CEO and/or leader of the corporation and/or union from using the resources of the group to suppress the ideals of the member.

Click to expand...

Banning direction contributions to candidates won't prevent unlimited independent expenditures on their behalf. Since independent expenditures are considered free speech in praising or criticizing a candidate, it would take a constitutional amendment to limit them. California has some of the strictest campaign disclosure laws in the nations for non-federal elections (federal elections in all states are governed by federal law), but Citizens United changed them somewhat. For example, a Bay Area candidate for county supervisor who plead no contest to shoplifting was attacked by what appeared to be a homemade sign calling her a thief that was displayed in front of a local supermarket parking lot. All campaign material must usually come from a campaign committee that is registered with the FPPC, but the sign was not investigated. It would likely have been considered protected speech.

Shiny Celebi said:

I never understood corporate personhood. Why are they labeled that in the first place. In my opinion corporations have too much power and influence the govenment/elections too much.

Click to expand...

Corporations fought to get themselves recognized as legal persons so they would get all the benefits of being real people, like the protection to speak freely. But of course they, being a corporation, can speak so much more freely (as in with more money) that it drowns out real people's voices and not being actual individuals they are much harder to punish when they break the law. Can't put a corporation in jail, only individuals serving in a corporation, and they can be replaced and/or their misdeeds covered up and obfuscated. Basically, someone a while back realized that a corporation could gain more power by being a person on paper with none of the drawbacks of being a real person.