Corporate Personhood | An Introduction - Reclaim Democracy!

The government, in its , argues that the "contraceptive coverage" mandate does not "substantially burden" an employer's free exercise of religion. (More on that particularly point in a subsequent article on this.) But while additionally urging that the contraceptive coverage mandate is based upon a compelling government interest, the government sets forth a number of significant ACA benefits that have been obscured by the fog of the unrelenting right wing, anti-Obamacare propaganda war. The critical threshold issue that must be met in these cases, any of those additional issues need be reached, entails the validity and/or scope of the controversial concept of "corporate personhood".

Why do private corporations have personhood, while governmental or “public” corporations do not?

In applying the pros and cons of corporate personhood to transbemans there are also different perspectives we can take. We can take the societal perspective or we can take the perspective from BINA48 .

Corporate Personhood - The Huffington Post

Occupy protesters and progressive politicians call for end to corporate personhood Note: Anna is correct that Moyers was wrong, and commited a crime against the American people by presenting this issue as an open debate. Because of the perverse nature of the arguments for corporate personhood it was equivalent to an argument for slavery or against female citizenship. As many have observed the balance of power is already skewed in favor of the wealthy by the use of corporate personhood(multiple acts of voting and lobbying by the same individuals without effective limit). Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and any other Supremes who decide in favor of corporatism on the greater issue of free speech will have committed treason against the people. It is obvious that persons who support such nonsense are bought, and are probably hungry for intensified fascism.

Corporate personhood - RationalWiki

LVogt: So you agree with my point that corporate personhood amounts to unjust multiplication of the wealthy point of view? I would go farther and disallow the expenditure of unlimited amounts by INDIVIDUALS in pursuit of political goals. (ie: Jon Corzine's runs for senate or governor, or even for the hiring of any lobbyist) If citizens see something as important they should lobby on their own, no professionals! The Supreme Court decision that money amounts to free speech is heresy to democracy. Hannah Ahrendt, after the horrors of WWII, decided political life in a democratic state should be conceived of as divided between the eidos (housekeeping/ political economy) and demos (the realm of mature political judgment). This is a somewhat utopian idea I have struggled over decades to understand.(I may have embellished it with my own hopes.) Essentially though, she meant that there should be no question concerning the priorities of the highest general human welfare possible in any economy, and that only ethical and moral issues be subject to contentious debate. Operations to meet needs should be automatically implemented. The selfish focus on taxation and wealth accumulation, then, are mainly an alienated reflection of our inability to generate empathy for and trust in others. The definition of hate for a society is the inability to tend to the suffering of our fellows. Our entire public universe exhibits this incapacity at present.

What Is The Basis For Corporate Personhood? : NPR