Latest Breaking News

aggiesal

(10,759 posts)

31. There was talk in the past . . .

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:19 PM

Feb 2013

and I mean a long time ago (late 1700's, early 1800's) to only allow
corporations to exist for a set amount of time (20 - 30 years) and
then to desolve. Because our founding fathers (who I think were brilliant,
compared to the idiots in congress today), knew that if corporations
don't have this restriction, they could conceivable "LIVE" forever.

But, I don't believe that law ever got implemented.
We should try to bring this back.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal Over Corporate Campaign Contributions [View all] Purveyor Feb 2013 OP

Corporations do not have free-speech rights Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #1

'Corporations are people my friend.' nt onehandle Feb 2013 #2

You are wrong, of course. And its a good thing that you are wrong. onenote Feb 2013 #10

Except that.... Veilex Feb 2013 #13

No, not "except that" onenote Feb 2013 #19

Except that... Veilex Feb 2013 #51

Corporations can and are sued for defamation too onenote Feb 2013 #52

Having more opportunity... Veilex Feb 2013 #53

As an individual I also am more limited in how far and wide I can spread my message compared onenote Feb 2013 #54

I have no issues Veilex Feb 2013 #55

Citizens United was not legislation. It struck down legislation. onenote Mar 2013 #58

Either way, Veilex Mar 2013 #59

Why is money speech? Orrex Feb 2013 #14

So would you be okay with a law that said onenote Feb 2013 #17

Explain to me why money is speech. Orrex Feb 2013 #18

I just explained that regulation of speech is and always has been permissible if justified by a onenote Feb 2013 #21

In a word, sure. Why not? Orrex Feb 2013 #23

Ha! Because money talks!!!!! nt valerief Feb 2013 #24

Never heard the expression, "Money Talks"? Javaman Feb 2013 #50

Still, I have a hard time with money = speech. AllyCat Feb 2013 #20

Which is why limits on contributions should be constitutional onenote Feb 2013 #22

That's an interesting way to put it, and I may have misunderstood you previously Orrex Feb 2013 #27

You tell me how a corporation talks without a PERSON interrupting Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #28

Corporations have privileges that are and should be defined by federal and state laws. NYC Liberal Feb 2013 #57

They do if the SCOTUS says they do. nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #44

When a corporation gives live birth at the hospital to a baby corporation, AndyA Feb 2013 #3

The female corporation is the one with boobs. groundloop Feb 2013 #7

Alerting ...for using the words "boobs" and "dicks". L0oniX Feb 2013 #9

Alerting on you for the same reason. You know, using those words. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #45

Ok ...I will alert on myself. BREAKING NEWS: results are below... L0oniX Feb 2013 #48

If you dont behave I am going to meta and calling you out. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #49

But A "Lorena Bobbitt" Corporation Has Neither n/t DallasNE Feb 2013 #15

Corporate Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal Over Corporate Campaign Contributions jsr Feb 2013 #4

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ L0oniX Feb 2013 #8

Um . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #32

You're absolutely right. jsr Feb 2013 #42

In reality a such ban was UPHELD. alp227 Feb 2013 #41

I am surprised. Why arent you? Or did I misunderstand something? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #46

Corporations aren't people - they're giant profit-obsessed monsters pretending to be people. reformist2 Feb 2013 #5

They are legal entities, existing only paper and they exist for the sole purpose ProfessionalLeftist Feb 2013 #25

You have described one category of corporation. onenote Feb 2013 #33

There was talk in the past . . . aggiesal Feb 2013 #31

When one is Scalded Nun Feb 2013 #6

Clear as Mud! anokaflash Feb 2013 #11

I take it you haven't read the decision onenote Feb 2013 #16

It was a stupid ass decision Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #30

This message was self-deleted by its author onenote Feb 2013 #34

Same question: have you read the decision? onenote Feb 2013 #36

Not all of it Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #39

Why do you think it was a "stupid ass" decision? onenote Feb 2013 #40

I was talking about the CU decision Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #43

Ok.No disagreement there. Thanks for clarifying onenote Feb 2013 #47

So Corruption Still Needs To Occur At Arms Length DallasNE Feb 2013 #12

Is this ruling good or bad for us? nt brush Feb 2013 #26

Good...eom Kolesar Feb 2013 #29

Some commenters don't seem to understand the import of this . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #35

I agree that your interpretation is correct. However.... groundloop Feb 2013 #37

Agreed . . . markpkessinger Feb 2013 #38

What's the point of this century-old ban Blue_Tires Feb 2013 #56