Why can't Obama give a straight answer to the "Are corporations people" question?

[Renew Deal]

Obama is asked by Wolf Blitzer "Romney says corporations are people. Does he have a point?"

That's a simple question with only one answer. "No, corporations are not people. Romney is wrong."

Instead he goes into some diatribe about all the good things corporations do. I'm not saying corporations are evil, but I think that's a terrible and evasive answer.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/08/16/tsr.obama.blitzer.perry.romney.cnn#/video/politics/2011/08/16/tsr.obama.blitzer.perry.romney.cnn

[Autumn]

1. Corporations are big donors and like any politician Obama

would rather not give a straight answer.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. +1000000!

He's certainly not going to bite the hand that feeds him.

[truebrit71]

17. x2

Spot on imho..

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

37. Obama does not accept corporate donations. Neither does the DNC. nt

[former9thward]

42. He doesn't accept them because they have been illegal for 100 years now.

The R candidates don't accept them either. The are illegal. Just like union donations are illegal to presidential candidates. But what Obama does accept is donations from corporation executives just as the R candidates do.

[ProSense]

Well,

"He doesn't accept them because they have been illegal for 100 years now."

...accepting money from corporate PACs and lobbyists isn't illegal, and Republicans do.

In fact, there is a huge difference between one million individuals contributing $25 and a PAC or top executives of a company contributing thousands of dollars.

[former9thward]

47. Are you seriously saying Obama does not accept money from top executives?

Maybe you should check out the bundlers. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638 BTW I don't care where Obama or the R candidates get their money as long as it is openly disclosed. I (as well as Obama) oppose public financing of the presidential elections. Let them get their money from whomever but disclose it.

[ProSense]

53. A

"Are you seriously saying Obama does not accept money from top executives?"

...bundler is not a PAC, and I said nothing about Obama taking money from top executives. Individuals can contribute up to a certain amount.

[Orsino]

49. But he knows and respects what they could do to him in 2012.

He avoids tugging on Superman's cape.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. It depends on your definition of 'is'

LOL..... politicians and lawyers... what can we say..
except maybe to quote Shakespeare.

[NorthCarolina]

3. His answer would not sit well with the base.

Best to stay evasive and continue to reap financial gain from the corporate overlords.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. because the democratic party, is just as loving of corporations

i think there are major difference in the two parties, but corporate lovingness is shared between both

[Swede]

7. Obama is evil

I get it.

[SidDithers]

19. Lots of this going on, eh?...nt

Sid

[11 Bravo]

39. I can't wait until he's our nominee in the GE, and all this bullshit gets TSed.

[frylock]

50. a post like this won't get TS'd..

sorry to ruin your day.

[11 Bravo]

77. Sorry, Sparky, but my day can NEVER be ruined by an anonymous schmuck on an internet message board.

I have the most beautiful wife in the world, two amazing kids, I love my job, and I'm looking forward to re-electing the Democratic President of the United States to a second term.
Fuck! It's a GREAT day!

[frylock]

83. well good for you, sport!

:thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

8. That just sucks.

Sigh.

I remain hopeful that he might become more vocal during his second term.

:patriot:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. His answer tells you all you need to know

He has some loyalties to the corporations and think they do good. And he is not willing to recognize or acknowledge the fact that corporatiions exploit flesh and blood people.

And that tells me that he is not my champion - and I ought not expect that to change.

[ProSense]

11. Here's the transcript

CNN

BLITZER: Mitt Romney says corporations are people. Does he have a point?

OBAMA: Well, if you tell me that corporations are vital to American life, that the free enterprise system has been the greatest wealth creator that we've ever seen, that their corporate CEOs and folks who are working in our large companies that are creating incredible products and services and that is all to the benefit of the United States of America, that I absolutely agree with.

If, on the other hand, you tell me that every corporate tax break that's out there is somehow good for ordinary Americans, that we have a tax code that's fair, that asking oil and gas companies, for example, not to get special exemptions that other folks don't get, and that if we're closing those tax loopholes, somehow, that that is going to hurt America, then that I disagree with.

And I think that, you know, corporations serve an important benefit, but ultimately we've got to look at what's good for ordinary people, you know, how do we create jobs, how do we create economic growth. And a lot of the special interest legislation we see in Washington isn't benefiting ordinary people.

[kentuck]

12. Spoken like a true Senator...

That can see every side of a hexagon.

[ProSense]

15. Well,

the first paragraph was unneccessary, but I like the rest about loopholes and special interest legislation.

[kentuck]

18. Yep.

He answered everything except the question.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sad sally]

66. Spoken like a tried and true politician.

[Renew Deal]

24. Thanks

:hi:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

94. Obama's response is tripe. n/t

[LiberalArkie]

13. His masters have not told him what to say.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Hand meets glove. Welcome to the land of Trickle Down Politics.

[phleshdef]

32. What part of the President's answer had ANYTHING to do with supporting trickle down?

I'll make it easy for you. Nothing.

[Fumesucker]

35. What part of the President's answer had ANYTHING to do with the question?

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

40. Every single part of it.

When Romney said corporations are people, he was implying that corporations are made up of people that do something important for our society. You can disagree or agree with that. But thats the context of Romney's argument.

Obama was responding to the context of Romney's argument and he isn't one to give anything an overlysimplistic answer. Analytical people don't tend to think in black and white. So his answer, to Romney's context, was that there are plenty of good people that work for corporations but the company as a whole should not be given the special tax breaks and special exemptions that they bought with lobbyist money.

He spoke to the real argument, not the silly rhetorical, philosophical one.

[Fumesucker]

46. Oh bullshit, it was a yes or no question..

He could have easily said something like "Of course a corporation is not a person" and then gone on with the rest of what he actually did say.

That would have answered the question and got his talking points in, but he couldn't/wouldn't do that.

[phleshdef]

57. Its a stupid question in which a yes or no the answer has no value.

And if the President wants to give a more thought out position, thats his business. He isn't answering questions to please your narrow attention span. I'm glad he doesn't delve in the world of black and white. Thats the conservative mindset.

[Fumesucker]

61. It would only have taken a few more words to answer the question directly..

As I already pointed out.

Do *you* think corporations are people?

[phleshdef]

76. If you want the valid, technical answer, then no, of course not.

But in a personal sense, corporations are the people that own them and work for them. Of course, Microsoft is not a person. Haliburton is not a person. They represent entities of people that are tied by all the forces that make them a company. The moment the President straight up says "corporations are not people", the technical sense of the word will be thrown out the window by the media and he will be attacked for dehumanizing private industry workers. So Obama was wise to to give a more elaborative answer on how he thinks corporations should be treated by Washington instead of going for a direct "yes or no" answer to a shitty question like that.

Its not like the President has been the least bit ambiguous on this question as far as Citzens United goes. He called out the Supreme Court, to their faces, in front of the whole country during a SOTU speech. You don't get any more clear than that. Thats why criticms over the way he answered this question in regard to Romney's statement are full of hollow bullshit. We all know the issue most tied to the subject is Citizens United and its pretty much impossible to not recognize that Barack Obama has fiercely opposed that ruling. He can avoid giving the Republicans easily misrepresented soundbytes and still be on the right side of the issue.

[Fumesucker]

78. In other words he was trying to avoid attacks from the right wing..

He just reinforced my view that he's an equivocating middle-of-the-roader who refuses to say what really needs to be said.

Corporations are a means of generating profit while avoiding personal responsibility for one's actions.

I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

[phleshdef]

80. More like avoiding pissing off everyone else that doesn't see things the way you do.

If Obama cared about pissing off right wingers, he never would have signed anything he ever passed. He wouldn't even be President. But its not only right wingers that work for corporations. Its liberals and people who don't identify with any particular ideology, just as much as right wingers. The President would be stupid to say something that could easily be misconstrued as an insult to them just to make you happy. Liberals would likely understand what he meant. Conservatives would misconstrue what he meant. And the rest of apolitical America would listen to the louder, angrier of the bunch, being the conservatives. Thats how this country works a lot of the time.

He knows that you can pay a price for being wrecklessly stupid with your words. Like all human beings, he has stuck his foot in his mouth with the best of intentions. He avoided doing that on this question and I'm glad he did. Its why someone like him can manage to be President and not someone like yourself.

[Fumesucker]

81. But it's OK for him to piss me off is what you're saying..

It's an insult to my intelligence that Obama couldn't come out and just say, "of course corporations are not actual persons".

Because, you know, they're not as you have already admitted.

Obama damn sure is a long way away from FDR's "I welcome their hatred".

FDR was so damn popular the Republicans amended the Constitution in order to keep anyone like him from ever holding the office for as long as he did again.

Americans are longing for someone who will tell it like it really is like a man dying of thirst in the desert longs for water, Obama is not that person.

[mmonk]

16. The President is under the corporations just like the Congress and Courts.

[frazzled]

20. No one criticized the Citizens United decision more than Obama

At his 2010 State of the Union address he stared down the Supreme Court justices and denounced their ruling (which was of course based on the principle of "pesonhood"). You certainly remember the cameras catching Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "Not true." No president had ever criticized the Supreme Court to its face like that.

At the State of the Union, Obama broke with tradition and directly went after the decision, issued earlier this year and allowing corporations to get involved in elections.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said from the House floor, as the majority of the Supreme Court justices sat right below him in the chamber.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/battle-over-citizens-united-case-leads-to-white-house-v-supreme-court-spat.php

[Renew Deal]

25. Part of that speech is in my signature

And has been since the day he made it.

[former9thward]

43. Citizens United did not give corporations and unions "personhood".

That was done by the SC over a hundred years ago. That was the question that Obama was asked and he declined to answer it.

[frazzled]

64. Yes, personhood of corporations was absolutely invoked in Citizen's United--

by the dissenting opinions of the Court.

From a conversation with John Witt, Professor of Law and History at Yale


BLOCK: The legal doctrine, as I understand, it goes back to a Supreme Court case. It's in the late 19th century, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. What was that case about essentially?

WITT: So, this is a case where the Occupy Wall Street protestors have distorted the details, but they really have it right in spirit. That was a case in which the Southern Pacific Railroad was protesting taxes that had been placed on it by California and by counties in California. And in that case, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Morrison Waite, stood up in January of 1886 and said what pretty much everybody in the courthouse thought, which was that corporations were persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.

BLOCK: The 14th Amendment dating from right after the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause is what we're talking about.

WITT: Yeah, the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons. It provides that all persons have a right to equal protection under the laws. And that question wasn't controversial at the time. What mattered, really, was what happened later.

BLOCK: Meaning, what exactly?

WITT: What the court started to do around the turn of the 20th century and into the 20th century was to begin to force legislatures at the state level and the federal Congress to treat metaphysical persons, that is to say corporations, the same as natural persons for purposes of contracting and rights to property.

BLOCK: And more recently in this century, we do see the term corporate personhood also applied to the landmark Citizens United case, the Supreme Court lifting restrictions on corporate spending for political campaigns. Was that case also argued on these same grounds of corporate personhood?

WITT: Well, for the Citizens United case, corporate personhood wasn't required for purposes of the majority's decision to strike down the regulations on campaign spending. Corporate personhood was invoked by the four dissenters in Citizens United. What the dissenters said was that the differences, which are very real, of course, between natural persons and metaphysical persons or corporations might be a good reason to distinguish between natural persons and corporations for purposes of regulating speech.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141663195/what-is-the-basis-for-corporate-personhood

Essentially, why Citizen's United should not have been passed, according to the dissenters, is that the kind of metaphysical "personhood" the court had previously (and perhaps not wisely) defined may not be well suited to issues of speech.

[former9thward]

75. Yes that was the basis of the dissent.

It is not suited for speech. But none of the dissenters have ever disagreed with the 'personhood' concept for corporations. They all support it. That is why Obama side stepped the question.

[TheKentuckian]

90. Corporate personhood did not begin with Citizens United and would be a mountain of an issue without

that decision in place, it just made matters much worse. CU made money speech and gave those with the most money the most expression.

I have little doubt that around the nation's boardrooms there are those against CU that firmly believe in corporate personhood.
Conflating the two is sloppy as fuck and makes no sense to those with memories more than a few years long.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Recced to "0"

I see the Boosters have been here.

[closeupready]

22. Because he doesn't want to anger his campaign donors nor the Democratic base.

So he's trying to have it both ways.

[RKP5637]

26. He's sponsored by the corporate empire! n/t

[G_j]

27. that says a lot

about Obama, sadly...

[phleshdef]

34. He said that corporations shouldn't be getting special tax breaks and special exemptions and their..

loopholes should be closed. So all that says about Obama is that he supports the right agenda. Whats actually sad is that you would rather hurl firebombs than actually read or listen to what he said.

[lame54]

28. you should say corporations are evil

[datasuspect]

29. they're damn good people when they funnel $$$$$$$$$$$ to your political campaign

they're some of the best people in the world when they funnel wealth to your family after you leave office too.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

31. There was absolutely nothing wrong with his answer and it lasted less than a minute.

If an answer that takes less than a minute to give is considered a "diatribe" by you, then I seriously question your attention span. It needs some work.

[NNN0LHI]

36. Read this and maybe you will understand it better?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/7498310-452/hold-the-fork-obama-may-not-be-toast-yet.html

<snip>I keep thinking about a moment during the 2008 presidential debates. John McCain was trying to score a cheap political point by sinking his teeth into Obama’s efforts to get federal support for a new mechanism to project stars at the Adler Planetarium, replacing one that was 40 years old and crumbling.

McCain called it a “$3 million overhead projector” as if it were office supply surplus.

He brought it up three times, and I settled back, eager for Obama to dice him apart for being deceptive and taking a stand against teaching schoolchildren about the heavens.

Obama didn’t. He demurred. He let McCain have his little victory. I couldn’t understand it, not until the debates were over and Obama had beat McCain, who seemed mean, vindictive, almost unhinged. It began to dawn on me that perhaps Obama knew what he was doing, perhaps he declined to arm-wrestle McCain over his Adler canard because he was going for victory on more substantive matters, like a wrestler who doesn’t need to rack up easy points because he’s going to pin the guy.

I’m not saying that Obama is looking weak intentionally — that letting the Republicans knock his books out of his hands and kick them down the hall is part of some master plan to draw Republicans out and lure them into nominating the most fanatical among them to face him. Nobody is that smart.

But we should remember that restraint and deliberation is what got Obama this far.

[Sheepshank]

38. Corporations pay income tax as if they are a person....

for taxing purposes they have been considered a person for some time. I would imagine there is a quandry there.

[Zorra]

41. That's some real, real bad shit right there.

Deep.

He needs to clearly state it like this:

"I absolutely do not believe that corporations are persons."

If he does not make this perfectly clear, I seriously doubt that he can win the 2012 election.

Corporations don't vote, people do, and anyone that can't plainly see that a corporation is not a person is way too stupid to be President.

[WCGreen]

54. But they are...

In the eyes of the law.

The whole idea of the corporation was to create an entity that could stand alone and protect those who own the company from liability both criminal and monetary.

The corporation pays taxes before the money is distributed to the owners who have to pay tax on the profit.

When a corporation is taken to court, it is the corporation that is being sued or charged and not the owners.

In that sense, being able to sue, to continue operation after the death of any shareholder and the accrual of taxes to all tax entities makes the corporation has "personhood".

I'm just saying that is why a lawyer might be somewhat comfortable with the statement that corporations are people.

It has nothing to do with a collection of individuals, it has everything to do with being considered, by law, to be a separate entity from those who own shares in said corporation.

If it was me I would reply, in some sense they are, they pay taxes and can be sued, but it is only a legal distinction and that is it.

[Zorra]

63. Owning slaves was legal at one time...

In the eyes of the law.

The whole idea of having black slaves in this country was to make sure that white folks could have free labor.

Slaves made more profits for slave owners.

Slaveowners owned their slaves, and slaves had no legal rights.

In that sense, slaves were considered property, and not persons.

I'm just saying that a lawyer might be comfortable with the statement that black slaves were not people.

If it was me I would reply that I can tell right from wrong, and, since black slaves have hearts and souls and minds and look just like white folks except that their skin is somewhat darker, that they are definitely obviously people.

My point is that just because the law tells us something is true solely for purposes of commercial convenience, it does not, in reality, make something true, or moral, or ethical.

Or anywhere within the realm of reason or common sense.

[WCGreen]

71. Really, that is where you go with this....

[Magoo48]

44. IMO.....a one word answer would have been quite powerful...

[DeSwiss]

45. K&R n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

48. He's a law professor. The answer is "Sometimes, yes. In some ways..."

And he doesn't want to make you angry by giving it. Even if it's true.

Can't say I blame him.

[DevonRex]

51. Ah. Now I get it. Nt

[WCGreen]

52. Because legally speaking, corporations are people...

In the sense that they can be sued and that the corporation operates as it's own entity. The shareholders are protected because the corporation has standing on it's own.

Corporations pay taxes and protect shareholders from personal liability.

Knowing that the president is an Ivy League trained lawyer, he probably was trying to think of the best way to explain that special relationship corporations have for legal and tax purposes.

[Romulox]

55. People, by definition, are mortal. nt

[WCGreen]

56. Well no shit...

I was just pointing out why he seems to have been searching for a concise answer.

[Romulox]

58. Corporations, not being mortal, would seem therefore to enjoy MORE rights than natural people under

your formulation.

"I was just pointing out why he seems to have been searching for a concise answer."

And I am "just" pointing out the massive logical inconsistency in the position you put forward. :hi:

[WCGreen]

67. It's not my logic...

It's the way the law treats corporations.

Here is an explaination...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corporations

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

Corporations are taxable entities that fall under a different scheme from individuals. Although corporations have a "double tax" problem -- both corporate profits and shareholder dividends are taxed -- corporate profits are taxed at a lower rate than the rates for individuals.

[Romulox]

85. Then just cite precedent. Your attempt to *explain* this logic invites critique.

"Here is an explaination..."

You can argue logic, or you can cite precedent. Citing precedent and then arguing the logic behind it invites a critique of that logic. You can't cite the precedent, then "explain" the logic, and then shut off all critique.

Corporate personhood is illogical, and an appeal to tradition ("stare decisis") is the only grounds on which it can be defended. There is no logical or moral argument in favor of the doctrine of corporate personhood. :hi:

[surrealAmerican]

82. There is no legal limit to a human lifespan.

You're conflating nature with government.

[Romulox]

84. That's gibberish. Logic is the underpinning of all law. If a law is illogical, it's unjust. nt

[treestar]

60. +1

And knowing there are people out there who just generally rage against them as a convenient "bad guy."

[Romulox]

86. What a surprise to find you so enthusiastic a supporter of corporate personhood! nt

[treestar]

91. Is that supposed to be a slam?

Because you don't have a convincing argument as to how the economy will work without limited liability.

[Romulox]

95. "Limited liability" hasn't got a THING to do with "corporate personhood". What a surprise to find

an issue that you don't understand, and yet still feel free to opine about!

[treestar]

59. Corporations are legal entities

That can own, buy, sell, sue and be sued.

For some reason, the left gets emotional about this and can't take that reasoned and logical explanation.

They do allow people to go into business limiting their liability, unlike the old fashioned sole proprietorship or partnership. But the left has them as the latest boogeyman, and so you have to be careful talking about them.

[SidDithers]

62. Many on the left don't (can't?) do reason and logic...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unionworks]

72. many on the left

Are incapable of bending both reality and our morals to crouch down and lick the hand that oppresses us. Seeing the CIC do it is positively demoralizing.

[treestar]

93. How are you oppressed by the existence of the corporate form

of doing business?

If you went into business, are you saying you would never incorporate? You'd be a sole proprietor or partner?

[Zorra]

74. Maybe. But no one on the right (can?) do reason or logic.

We on the left have a significant advantage in this area.

[SidDithers]

79. Yes. Many of us on the left do...nt

Sid

[Silent3]

73. While there's a lot of overly simplistic "corporations = evil" thinking...

...(which annoys me as much as overly simplistic "capitalism = evil" thinking) the way many corporations operate today, and the slanted benefits big corporations receive from our legal system and political culture, there's quite a bit about corporations to be angry about.

The Citizen's United decision has been one of the most blatant recent failures to keep corporate power in check. I think that's the key question being addressed to Obama in the OP. Obama has spoken out sharply against Citizen's United in the past (in fact, right in front of the assembled members of the Supreme Court during one State of the Union address, as I recall), so I'm not sure why he'd be waffling now, as the OP suggests.

[treestar]

92. Obama isn't doing much but explaining

how corporations might be able to do business and that doing business is a good thing. So I don't see that he's waffling.

Citizens United may be bad, but it doesn't mean the corporate form of business is evil in itself, like one so often sees alleged on DU. I don't even see how a modern economy could exist if everyone had to subject themselves to personal and partnership liability. I have a feeling that the people who condemn it so much work for corporations (or did) and just made a paycheck and don't think of running the business.

[Huey P. Long]

68. Is this OP question supposed to be rhetorical? I think the answer is self evident.

I also believe anyone who answers honestly is flirting with getting TS'd.
OBEY.

[LanternWaste]

69. means of painting those with opposite opinions...

"OBEY."

A rather self-serving and self-validating label onto those with differing opinions...

[unionworks]

70. REALITY CHECK

Corporations are NOT FUCKING PEOPLE and never will be, except. In wingnut lala land! Yeah, I expect Obama to be much more vocal next next term...:woohoo: :sarcasm:

[blkmusclmachine]

87. Obama said some noise about the Citizens United ruling,

not that I think he was giving a straight answer. Follow the money, and find the true allegencies. Always the same.

[unionworks]

88. in your honor

Kicking back with a glass of muscatel and a bomber, and putting Marvins "what's goin on" on the turntable, with sincere and deepest respect.

[unionworks]

89. "Don't punish me

...with brutality, come on talk to me, so you can see, WHAT'S GOIN' ON"! ;)