Support the Shareholder Protection Act - write your Reps and Sens

http://robertreich.org/post/347547700/its-time-for-a-shareholder-protection-act

It's Time for a Shareholder Protection Act
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010
Five members of the Supreme Court have defied logic by assuming that corporations are people. They are not. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements. They are owned by their shareholders.

So what do we do now, other than wait for another Supreme Court opening, and for the President to appoint another Justice who understands this?

Push Congress to enact the “Shareholder Protection Act.”

For many years, anti-union lobbyists have pushed what they call “pay-check protection” laws, supposedly designed to protect union members from being forced, through their dues, to support union political activities they oppose. Under such laws — already in effect in several states — no union dues can be spent for any political purpose unless union members agree.

The same principle should protect shareholders from being forced to spend their share of corporate earnings in favor of or against a particular candidate. Surely a First Amendment that protects corporate free speech protects individuals no less.

Under a shareholder protection law, shareholders would not have to spend their share of corporate earnings on candidates who they personally oppose. If a company dedicates, say, $100,000 to a particular campaign in a given year — directly, or indirectly through a front organization — shareholders who don’t want their money used this way would get a special dividend or additional shares representing their pro rata share of that campaign expenditure. (Mutual funds and pension plans would have to notify their shareholders of any such political activity among the companies they’ve invested on their shareholders’ behalf, and seek their shareholders’ permission.) This way, corporate money for or against a particular candidate would be paid for only by shareholders who wanted to spend their portion of company earnings on it.

The Shareholder Protection Act is something even Scott Brown should be able to get behind. As should a Supreme Court supremely sensitive to First Amendment rights.

That's what I couldn't understand about this, how is a corporation, a group of people, that make up that group, individual people?

Does that mean that everyone who works for that group, of the same mind as those who decide to donate money to a particular candidate?

No, it means upper management can back people who they believe will increase their bottom line and look out for their corporate interests rather than the interests of the electorate. They can do so regardless of whether or not their employees or stock holders agree with the politics.

Money wins elections and corporations have most of it. They can now play king-maker out in the open.

This is a fitting way to run elections since we exist only to serve the economy, and our worth is defined by our level of consumption. Capitalism at it's finest.

A very bad week for the country.

This is another perspective.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/congress-shall-make-no-law/print/

They seem to be arguing this from the point of free speech.
As they say,
"There can be honest disagreements about the role of money in politics. But I would hope that, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that any attempt by the government to silence a citizen should be met with a stern rebuke"

The key word here is citizen.

Corporations should not be viewed as or receive the same protection as citizens. I think that is the fundamental problem brought to light by this ridiculous ruling.

On a side note while I support freedom of speech and opinions, everyone should be held accountable for distortion of facts and fabrication of lies.
Much of the decisiveness of our citizenry can be laid at the feet of grossly distorted analysis and rhetoric.

All the fears regarding political parties George Washington expressed in his final presidential speech have come to fruition.

Ufff... just finished reading the whole damn thing.... so the bottom line is that they were trying to level the playing field. Taking away the unfair advantage from politicians supported by corporations who own media and by other entities.

But still..... instead of taking money out of the process – they will now allow / encourage a lot more of it in.

It's like fixing the problem of steroids in sports by legalizing doping – instead of getting rid of a few cheaters.

http://robertreich.org/post/347547700/its-time-for-a-shareholder-protection-act

Support the Shareholder Protection Act.

Of course. I've noticed you're on the wrong side of every issue.

The only answer is to take all the money out of elections. Public financing only.

well now we can have 24/7 political commercials.. hmmm maybe the FCC should give them their own channel and they can call it SPIN_TV paid for my every one but the politician.. By Lobbyist, for lobbyist... blah, blah. blah..