My small building business is a corporation, type S. Does 1 corp = 1 person?

[panader0]

I need help understanding this. What is the donation limit for individuals and what is it for a corporation? Could I donate as an individual and also as a corporation? (Not that I can afford too much).

[FormerDittoHead]

1. I asked this earlier. Dropped like a rock.

My impression is that the law about individuals remains - only corporations can spend without limit.

Sounds fair to me. :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

2. The key sentence in your post: "Not that I can afford too much."

A Subchapter S will probably get same "personhood" as a Subchapter C. But, uh, if Coke is sponsoring your local school board candidates on a platform of Coke Advertisement friendly schoolbooks, your $20,000 will bankrupt you before it puts a dent into Coke.

That's my guess.

[FarCenter]

3. S versus C Corporation is mostly a choice in how to be taxed

I'd think that the S Corporation could be just as evil politically as a C Corporation. In either case, your business is incorporated according to state law so that creditors of the S Corporation (a person) cannot attack your assets (another person's).

How does it feel to own a widely reviled corporation?

[panader0]

5. Ouch! Me and my 50% partner are the only workers at the time.

No work through the business in months. I have kept our license unger suspension until we either have work or fold after around 12 years.

[FarCenter]

6. There must be several million corporations in the US

My niece's one person insurance office is incorporated for obvious liability reasons.

Sorry that your business isn't doing well. I hope things improve soon.

[Roselma]

4. Another thought

Your individual donation limit remains the same. The Supreme Court didn't concern itself with campaign contributions.

It was about giving all "persons" the right to directly campaign for or advertise for or against whichever candidate they want. The problem with that is that big corporations are to be treated like "persons" and may have lots of money, possibly billions to spend on advertisements, so the richest corporations have to merely threaten a legislator that unless the legislator does what the corporation wants, the corporation will mount a campaign against the legislator. Exxon-Mobil (for example) could threaten a specific representative that they would be willing to spend $10 million in a direct television campaign against the representative unless the representative votes in support of an off-shore drilling bill. Exxon wouldn't have to actually spend a dime. The threat alone should do the job. Unions which tend to not have such deep pockets would never be able to compete with huge corporations in threatening representatives. This is a case where the richest "person" wins and rules/intimidates our Congresscritters.

[panader0]

9. So there's a limit on individuals but not corps?

[safeinOhio]

11. Any person may incorporate.

By doing so you'll have a free shot at lying, saying anything true or not, about another corporation, i.e Shell Oil, and not have any personal liability for your speech. You can't go to jail or be sued for any personal wealth.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Roselma]

15. I don't know about

whether you can be sued or not, but you sure don't have to be a corporation to do this. Anybody at all with enough money can directly air advertisements for or against any politician. Why bother to incorporate, when corporations and persons are treated the same in this circumstance. This is not considered a political contribution. It is considered the right to free speech. I have serious problems with foreign corporations, like Aramco, having such power over our legislators.

[galileoreloaded]

16. Piercing the corporate veil is quite difficult. n/t

[Roselma]

14. Sort of...

Every individual citizen can contribute to a campaign and/or to a PAC each election cycle. There are limits to contributing to actual campaigns. But...this isn't about campaign contributions.

This is about a person (or a corporation) directly, outside of the candidate's actual campaign, devising his/her own campaign and directly paying for advertisements without limit. So long as it isn't part of a candidate's actual campaign, it's a case of "anything goes." Therefore, our friends at Exxon-Mobil can spend millions of dollars on advertisements that they themselves create and pay for broadcast airtime. If they wanted, they could run advertisements supporting a candidate without asking the candidate's permission. This is a case of whoever has the most money wins.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. You should register your corporation to vote. I would.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Now there's an idea

Can you imagine a corporation showing up at the polls to vote?

[Orangepeel]

10. You can donate up to $2400 to a federal candidate. Your corporation cannot donate.

Direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates are still prohibited. Depending on your state election laws, you and your corporation may be able to each donate the maximum to state candidates.

You could always have spent unlimited amounts of your own money to independently support a candidate -- that is, buy your own ads and stuff, as long as you didn't coordinate with a campaign.

Before, your corporation could have donated unlimited amounts to buy ads ONLY to support "issues" like "don't raise taxes on small building businesses," or "call Congressman X and thank him for not raising taxes on small building businesses," or even, A vote on Amendment X will destroy America!"

But, your corporation could NOT have spent money advertising "Vote for Congressman X" or "Vote against "Congresswoman Y." Now, it can.

I'm in the minority, I know, but I don't think lifting the spending restrictions is that big a deal, although I disagree with it. Corporations already spend as much money as they want to on political advertising. They just do it surreptitiously.

This bill is BAD because it codifies the idea that corporations have the constitutional rights of people and they don't.

[panader0]

12. Thanks for the info.

[Roselma]

17. This is where I have a big problem

because many corporations are quite wealthy. They can outright threaten a Congresscritter that they will run an independent campaign against him/her unless they vote in a specific way. I think corporations having that kind of power over politicians isn't good for democracy. The wealthier the corporation, the scarier the threats could become. If I was a Congresscritter, I sure wouldn't want to take on Exxon-Mobil or Walmart.

[Orangepeel]

18. I don't like it either.

Walmart shouldn't be influencing politics and this decision will make it easier for bullshit like "swift boat veterans for truth" to get on air.

But corporations already spend as much money as they want to on politics. They just do it by coercing employees to give to candidates and sponsoring "issue" ads. So, I just don't believe this will make as much of a difference as others do.

Congress really needs to pass very strong disclaimer and disclosure laws in response. A political ad funded by a corporation should have to have an announcer say "this is a paid political advertisement paid for by Walmart" before and after the ad and it should be in visible letters across the bottom of the screen during the whole ad. If there are multiple corporations they should all be read out, even if they have to buy five minutes of ad time to do it.

[Bitwit1234]

13. OK since a corporation is a person I would expect

they could also purchase Health Insurance as one person and then distribute that health insurance program to each and every employee at no additional cost.Is this not correct.