1. Make a list of the rights of a corporation and a separate list of the responsibilities. Which is longer? Why do you think this is? According to the laws of United States corporations (presumed as legal entity also includes non-profit, associations, etc.) will be looked upon as a person unless otherwise stated. This rule is outlined in 1 U.S.C. §1 (“United States Code”): In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise The words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; This particular statute allows for corporations and such to obtain several, but not all, constitutional rights as any person or persons. In particularly own property, sue and be sued under criminal and civil law, enter contests. Moreover, because corporations and such are considerate as “person”, business has the legal rights for its debts and damages. On the contrary, persons who are employed by a particular association are liable for their own misconduct and law-breaking while acting on behalf of a corporation. In addition, corporation has rights for its own actions, has rights such as: limited free speech and to advertise their product ("The Rights of Corporations," 2009). Likewise, businesses have the responsibility to elect a CEO, provide continuity; increase profits, social responsibilities, and manages recourses effectively (“Functions & Responsibilities of a Corporation"). To conclude, corporations have the right to sue, be sued, own property, enter contracts, rights for debt and actions, particularly limited free speech, this includes making political expenditures under the First Amendment Law. Resp... ... middle of paper ... ...the constitution to add “money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights” we as citizens of US should ask for a new amendment that will deal strictly with corporations. Part of this amendment should include a section where it specifically states that persons involved in decision making should be held accountable in court of law for the mistakes that corporation makes. Simple dissolution of a corporation does not solve or punish people who are in charge of decision-making that harm an individual or individuals. The hype that this case has made could be justified, but not for the reasons it is known for. If a company has extra money and would like to invest in a candidate of their liking than they should be able to do so. The reason we are so successful is due to competition and added money could add the edge.
Corporation – “A business organization that exists as a legal entity and provides limited liability to its owners.” (Longenecker, Petty, Palich, Hoy, Pg. 205) The main advantage of a corporation is that the business liability falls onto this entity instead of the individuals that own it. The disadvantages of this organization are found mostly in its formation. A corporation is expensive to create and requires compliance with state
Corporations functioning within the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Corporations Act, 2001. Common law principles developed through judicial
Corporations are thought to have utmost power on shaping how the United States is ran, whether economically, environmentally, or socially. Business dictates in this country how we live, where we live, and unfortunately, if the people of this country are to face good times or bad times. If the economy falters in the United States, which is the foundation of business, then this country will also falter. With this knowledge by big business, the corporations have corporate hegemony; the ability to wield power and the mold making influence on Congress to shape laws and design loopholes for these massive corporations to jump through just in case.
Finally, I will discuss which type of corporation I prefer. A Review of Corporate Roles and Duties The Role of the Board of Directors. The corporation’s business is carried out by its management, under the direction of the Board of Directors. The Board, and each committee of the Board, has complete access to management. Also, the Board and committee member’s have access to independent advisors as each considers necessary or appropriate.
Supreme Court held that the BCRA and the Federal Election Commission had violated Citizens United’s First Amendment rights on the basis that, “...Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity” (558 U.S. 310, at 365). Kennedy also argued that, “... overruling Austin ‘effectively invalidate[s] not only BCRA Section 203, but also 2 U. S. C. 441b’s prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy.’” This majority was also comprised of Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. A second decision that upheld the constitutionality of sections 201 and 311 saw Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the majority (Oyez). The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) decision in question, which determined that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals, saw the Supreme Court overturning precedents in two prior cases: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission (2003). The Austin decision determined that corporate entities were not entitled to the same free speech protections as are individuals, and the McConnell decision held this with an added restriction on electioneering communication (558 U.S. 310, at
The main legal issue before the court arises, in determining whether liability should be extended to reach assets beyond those belonging to the corporation and whether the corporate veil should be pierced with regard to personal liability to others.
December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing
A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.
I believe money should not be considered free speech or opinion. Money should not be considered free speech, because giving a politician money is not expressing any type of opinion. If a politician needs to be convinced of something to benefit a company than arrange for a meeting and try to convince him or her with reason, and if you still don't get his or her vote then, most likely, you don't deserve it. Bribing politicians ruins the entire purpose of having regulations for companies. Although regulations protect Americans and make company's products better, it isn't cost effective to make products, and if bribery were not allowed then many companies would need to change how they work and many will no longer survive. Without laws prohibiting
In effect Salomon's principle as confirmed by Macaura v Northern Assurance Co. and Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd. helps form an image of a corporation as a 'depersonalised conception'[5], an object that is 'cleansed and emptied of its shareholders. '[6] Yet the concept of an incorporated company as a separate legal person causes some difficulties, for surely all 'legal personality is in a sense fiction'.[7] Questions soon arise ... ... middle of paper ... ...
Shah, A. (2006, May 28). Corporations and Worker's Rights. - Global Issues. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights
Finally I will state whether or not I agree with the given statement.cobd bdr sebdbdw orbd bdk inbd fobd bd. When a company receives a certificate of incorporation it has a 'separate legal personality'. In law the company becomes a legal person it its own right. The fundamental concept to become familiar with when starting up a business is the idea that the business has a legal personality in its own right, particularly when it assumes the form of a limited liability company. This essentially means that if one commences business as a limited liability company, then the corporation... ...
In the aftermath of Enron, Washington Mutual Bank, TYCO, and World Comm these companies went against the grain of what good ethical behavior is and what their respective company’s code of ethics were. The criminal justice system has made it clear that it will not allow companies and their executives to get away with the misuse of public trust by allowing them to make themselves rich at the expense of the employee. Where these crimes are both ethically and morally wrong, the CEO’s of major corporations are being punished by a ...
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose.