Letters to the Editor - June 30, 2012

Susan Dehm,

I couldn't help but notice that the focus of the comment is about corporations (there are over 75,000 in Oregon). Did you purposely omit unions from your comments? They were given the same rights as corporations in the ruling. In Oregon it is the unions buying government favors at a rate considerably more than corporations.

I believe there was a ruling that Unions are required to get member approval for political spending and corporations are not. (Seems a bit one sided to me) I personally don't believe either are "people". If corporations (and Unions) are to be considered people for political contributions then they should also be considered people for Income tax calculations.....

Kona,

Surely you're not suggesting that unions can match the contributions of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, the Heritage Foundation, Karl Rove, etc.?

Unions can't even come close to matching those kinds of dollars. What we need is an amendment to overturn the Citizen's United decision and ban all money from politics - no matter who or where it comes from.

Let political campaigns be publicly funded with each candidate getting the exact amount of (limited) money. Spend it well and you may win. Spend it badly, and you may lose.

montag,

In Oregon it is worse than "matching". The unions overwhelm the opposition in almost every tax measure.

I do agree with you that "ban all money from politics - no matter who or where it comes from".

Hacksaw,

"Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.
Since at least Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts."


Hacksaw,

"Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.
Since at least Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

Also, "Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all

Also,

Sorry for the duplication above. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the future.

Corporations as persons

"As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.
The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.
Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since that right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "appellants suggested that the use of the word "taxpayer" several times in the regulations requires that the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

Hacksaw,

Would you agree that there is a difference in corporations spending their own money out of corporate assets for political purposes and unions spending money out of the dues of its members?

Corporate assets represent the corporation/stockholders, not the employees of the corporation, while union assets represent direct contributions from membership.

In Oregon, it's no contest! Union political contributions overwhelm all other contributors.

And as portrayed in the administration of Kulongoski, former union reps litter some of the state's higher appointments. Ted himself began his residence in Eugene as a 'labor lawyer'.

Due to this 'union infiltration', many decisions made by Kulongoski's and his administration were union based, union backed, and to the union's advantage -- with little, if any, consideration to what would be in the best interests of the state or it's residents.

Banning political contributions might even lead to a real representative government -- but there is no way any D or R would vote to take such a huge cut in personal or prospective finances. An incurable addiction from this view.

Quote: Since at least Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts." Unquote

Just curious. What is the opposite of "natural persons" and could someone offer an example?

You asked, "Just curious. What is the opposite of "natural persons" and could someone offer an example?

"In jurisprudence, a natural person is a real human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a corporation or state.
In many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on gender, or Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only. Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a natural person can hold public office, but a corporation cannot. A corporation can, however, file a lawsuit or own property as a legal person."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

Regarding the transit issue again... and the letter to editor by Liz Marlia-Stein, and the below from Susan Dehm... I cannot imagine that a for profit company such as First Transit has the best interest of the people it serves at heart. They are for profit. That being said, the transit issue clamor has not died down for the people it is effecting. I challenge the commissioners and the First Transit management have no intention of making services better for people anytime soon. I am so angry at what it has done to seniors, disabled, youth trying to work, low income wage earners, and the bus drivers. I am not going to quiet down. That is the message I am hearing from Susan Dehm and Liz Marlia-Stein.
It is time that we, the people, speak loudly, to be heard over the clamoring dollars of the corporate interests, reminding our representatives that as we take better care of our citizens, our country becomes stronger; as we focus on social justice and ensure that all people are able to have their basic needs met, even corporations will be more successful. This means refocusing where we spend our government money: education, health care, infrastructure, social services, research and development. Here, money is better spent than on trying to maintain a military at a level focused on empire instead of the �common defense,� or on giving tax exemptions and incentives to large corporations already making record profits.
Susan Dehm
McMinnville

Susan,

We are in an interesting period. We are finding out that government cannot fill all of the "wants" that are desired by people in need. Transit systems are funded almost entirely by taxpayers. Taxpayers do not seem to want higher taxes. It is a difficult situation with (most likely) the worst to come.

Kona - Thank you for your comment to Susan - To correct baffled&bewildered is not Susan. I was just using a paragraph from her above letter to the editor. I like what she has to say..."Speak Loudly People". I maintain transit is still an issue and would not be such an issue if County officials had used the public funds appropriately during the Transit Plan adopted in 2007. Do you ride the bus? Do you rely on the bus to get to your job? Are you in a wheelchair? Are you mentally and physically able bodied to live your life without assistance? When you buy groceries do stock up or just carry enough to get you buy because you are on the bus or riding your bike. I will continue to speak loudly!

Baffled I understand your frustration, but as Kona said the Oregon Tax Payer has said no to any new taxes. In additon, years ago we voted to limit our property taxes which is a very large percentage (I would imagine) for County Income. That being said, the only alternative is to "rob peter to pay paul". To fund the bus system to a greater degree, somthing else the county pays for must be reduced. That my friend is where the "rub" is. I'm sure we all could find, what we each consider, waste in our local government. But what I consider waste you may not and vice- versa. Another alternative is to pay the bus drivers and staff of the bus company less to lower their costs, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen. I hope the situation works out for you and others who rely on public transportation. You are almost assured to have to pay more for the same service you were getting previously. That is something we all are having to do as you may have seen in your last Western Oregon Waste bill and McMinnville Water & Light bill.

I guess Kona, my point was this... In all the intellectual banter above, I felt Susan Dehm's point was lost. That's all.

Seriously, I am not asking for new taxes. The bus drivers are already making the lowest wages of most city bus drivers in the State of Oregon.
What I'm asking for is this... When taxpayers are so generously contributing to society, let our elected officials and administrations of "non profits" not take advantage of the citizens of this County and our Country as corporations do by fraudulent abuse of the people's money.
I wouldn't even think of asking the bus drivers to take less pay. I don't have to pay garbage. I live in an apartment.