SF’s Housing Crisis Explained

Re:SF’s Housing Crisis Explained by tracker1 on Tuesday April 15, 2014 @08:50PM (#7595310)

I mean, corporations should not be able to donate to political lobby groups, and campaigns. If an employee or shareholder wants to put their money in, so be it. Corporations should have very limited power, not treated like a person legally. You can have the protections you speak of without allowing political sway.

OMHO one of the biggest arguments for corporate personhood is they are tax paying entities... if you reduce corporations to only allow shared ownership and limited liability, while also limiting the holding of underutilized assets and capital, it would even out. I'm not talking about liability, I'm talking about holdings, taxes and political sway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF’s Housing Crisis Explained by ahomescu1 on Tuesday April 15, 2014 @09:07PM (#7595372)

> I mean, corporations should not be able to donate to political lobby groups, and campaigns.

While I agree with the idea itself, I don't think you can prevent that realistically. In the end, it's not "corporations" that donate money, but the people in charge of those corporations. If those people (the CEOs, VPs, board members and so on) want to make a donation, they can always do so privately (and most of them certainly have the money to do it).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF’s Housing Crisis Explained by tracker1 on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @04:38AM (#7596707)

Then let them.. and that becomes public record, and a non-living entity isn't directly affecting political sway.

[ Parent | on HN ]