Re:Three Uber security managers resign after CEO criticizes ...
by slavik81 on Friday December 01, 2017 @09:36PM
(#15829773)
> Isn't it a court decision, not a regulation? Are we all talking about Citizens United?
No. He's probably talking about the establishment of corporations by the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844[1], or its American equivalent.
Citizens United did not invent corporate personhood. That dates back to when the concept of a corporation was first established.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1844
Re:Three Uber security managers resign after CEO criticizes ...
by evgen on Saturday December 02, 2017 @04:28AM
(#15831147)
And the prior comment references Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific Railway, in which a note on the decisions (not even in the decision itself) stated that corporations were persons for purposes of the 14th amendment. It does not date back to the Joint Stock Companies act but comes from a little later in the post-civil war cases.
How can anyone know the motivations of the Justices?
> Like many regulations
Isn't it a court decision, not a regulation? Are we all talking about Citizens United?
> This was an effort to protect the economy from being ground to a halt by destructive litigious action and make courts more efficient.
Is there evidence that such a thing was at risk of happening? I know industry advocates commonly make the claim, but I haven't seen evidence.
IIRC, the court decision was to enable corporations to make political contributions based on their free speech rights as 'people'. How does that serve the purposes quoted above?