XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, van.general   
   XPost: vic.general, nanaimo.general, ab.politics   
   XPost: ont.politics   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   On 8/7/2014 5:01 PM, TomP wrote:   
   > I don't understand how a corporation can be given 'person' status. With   
   > that ranking corporations are granted rights as a person and can use   
   > their wealth to influence politicians and judges. The law that gives   
   > 'person' status to a corporation is doing the work of God. The rights of   
   > citizens should be far above any corporate rights.   
      
   I wonder if you're confusing 'separate legal entity' with 'person   
   status'.  They're not the same.   
      
   Corporations are set up to protect INDIVIDUALS within those companies   
   from being sued or driven into bankruptcy or even being found guilty,   
   for the actions of a company.   
   IOW, when Exxon had the giant spill, the individuals who had voting   
   rights or shares or were directors, could not be held individually   
   liable.  The company had to be sued.   
   Individuals could only be charged if they were prosecuted in a criminal   
   court for their actions which directly related to the spill.  Someone   
   who voted at a directors' meeting could not be held criminally liable   
   unless he was part of a negligent or culpable ignorance action.   
      
   The wealth that you mention used to influence politicians comes from the   
   corporation, rarely the individuals who are running or working for the   
   company.  That's why the Liberal government of Jean Chretien had the law   
   changed to limit campaign donations from corporations or unions or   
   associations.  Exxon or Imperial Oil could easily write out a cheque for   
   $1 million dollars to the Harper Conservative Party or the Liberals and   
   some of the largest unions could easily write one out to the New   
   Democrats and Liberals.  When it was changed to 'individuals only' and a   
   limit of $1,200 per individual was set, the game changed.   
      
   Now the corporations are playing a different game to be able to still   
   contribute huge sums to their favoured political party, but they're   
   being sneaky about how they do it.  Several Conservatives were elected   
   by corporations that sent in hundreds of 'individual' cheques in varying   
   amounts, and under individual's names of people working for their   
   company.  Some even went so far as to reimburse those individuals for   
   more money than the amount they wrote in the cheque.  Who's going to   
   complain about that?  Some individuals working for some companies didn't   
   even know this was being done using their names, until they got receipts   
   back from the party involved or Canada Revenue questioned duplicate   
   receipts that were sent to them.  A corporate-friendly, rightwing party   
   will always find a way to cheat.  See also the current court case of   
   Dean Del Mastro (of course, a Conservative) who exceeded EXPENSE limits   
   so that he could put out a whole lot more advertising for himself than   
   other candidates.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  That's why   
   Elections Canada was asking for more enforcement power, and instead was   
   met by reductions in enforcement powers, by Harper.   
      
      
   > If these companies and their Board of Directors were held responsible   
   > for the actions of their companies we would see a lot less of these   
   > disasters. It would only take a few CEOs to spend some serious time   
   > behind bars for the actions of their companies to change attitudes.   
      
   They CAN be held responsible under separate proceedings.  However,   
   class-action lawsuits after such disasters have to be made against the   
   corporation, not individuals.  And for good reasons too:  the   
   corporation has a helluva lot more monetary assets than the individuals   
   who run the company.  Payouts can be in the billions from such mega   
   entities, whereas they'd be peanuts from individuals.  Doesn't stop   
   those affected by the disasters from going after the directors who   
   purposely took short cuts or ignored warnings.  I believe that's what's   
   going on in the Lac Megantic case.  $25 million (which is peanuts) has   
   been awarded to those who suffered losses from the explosion by the   
   insurance company for the railway.  But the actual railway itself can be   
   liquidated and so of the proceeds of that sale can also flow to the   
   people of Lac Megantic.   
   The cleanup alone of the disaster site is between $200 million and $500   
   million.   
      
   But there are a few INDIVIDUALS who are being sued separately from the   
   corporate entity:   
      
   Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railways and three of its employees are each   
   charged with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death, one for   
   each victim of the crash.   
   If convicted, the men could face life sentences.   
      
   http://www.macleans.ca/news/locomotives-from-bankrupt-mma-railwa   
   -sold-at-auction/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)