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.
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
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
Introduction In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in.elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape. Campaign Finance in the United States During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address.
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.
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
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.