Colbert: Corporations Are People Too (VIDEO)

Stephen Colbert took on the Supreme Court case over "Hillary: The Movie" this week, which centers around a 90-minute film that savaged Clinton's presidential ambitions and whether or not it could be regulated as a campaign ad. The film's budget, funded by Citizens United, far exceeded the amount corporations and unions are legally allowed to spend on federal campaigns, but the court could change all that. The Supremes are on the verge of deregulating corporate campaign spending despite the fact that "[their deep pocket and the potential for corruption] amply justify treating corporate and union expenditures differently from those by individuals and ideological nonprofit groups," according to Sens. McCain and Feingold.

Stephen disagrees. He thinks that corporations should be treated just like individuals: "Corporations do everything people do except breathe, die and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River." He took us through the legal history of corporate campaign spending, which seems to hinge largely on an over-eager court reporter.


WATCH:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[RevBookburn]

Colbert is so funny. The point is always made. Word. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[macohmz]

Very good point. She's right. Judges gave birth to this idiotic notion that corporations are persons. They created a Frankenstein.

[Dustee]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

***Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law***

WASHINGTON -- In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

[jdrourke]

Nicely done, Dustee. Good to know this...

http://jdrourke.wordpress.com/

[filo]

Brilliant ! The Word is my favorite part of his show.

[eplebneesta]

I'm glad people are finally starting to focus on the key problem: campaign finance reform.

Ok. Money is speech. Fine.
My right to speak (eg this post) in no way requires anyone to listen, much less to obey.
If YOU choose to filter out comments from me, that in no way abridges my right to post.

If I yell, "Barry! Give us a public option!" and he doesn't listen to me then my free speech has not been abridged. I have the right to say it. No one can be forced to listen.

So the Aristocracy (corp+filthy rich) can "$ay" $omething with $$$. They have that right.
Candidates need not listen; they already rarely listen to constituents.
To get the government into the hands of the people, representatives must be disincentivized from listening. As long as we don't abridge anyone's right to speak.

As long as huge amounts of money are required to get a candidate noticed, then only the Aristocracy's candidates can get on the ballots.

And, as Boss Tweed said, "I don't care who does the voting as long as I get to do the nominating."

Campaign finance reform is the only way to wrest control from the Aristocracy.
Try to think of any major national problem that isn't aided or abetted by the Aristocracy.
Oil. Pharma. The MIC. Insurance. Banks. War profiteering. Cable.

One human, one vote.

E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Blessed are the cheesmakers.

[Rollingballafire]

This is one of the reason I like Stephen so much. This supreme court ruling is an extremely important issue that "news outlets" aren't given much attention to. If they rule in favor of corporations,it's an issue I think, left, right or middle Americans would oppose.
Go Colbert Nation! Keepin' it real!

[BettyTC]

News outlets haven't been giving this Supreme Court hearing any attention.

And you all know that there are some folks out there that don't understand his satirical presentation. You know I'm right. I'm waiting for Sarah Palin to tweet something like "Oh, I knew Stephen Colbert was on our side!". She'll do it. Unless one of her children stop her.

[eciaccio]

WE DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRACY. WE HAVE AN AUCTION.

[itolduso]

If a corporation wants to enjoy the rights of an individual then they must also abide by the limitations that an individual faces. So G.E. (& every other corp.) would no longer be eligible for special tax rates or incentives....it would be unconstitutional to offer them a break that I don't enjoy. And the F.B.I. would no longer be able to investigate & prosecute copyright & trademark infringement cases on behalf of Microsoft & Sony....they do not investigate on behalf of 'individuals', considering them 'civil' matters. And each corporation would face the same limit on political contributions that I, as an individual do-$2300.. And when a corporation is found guilty of a felony -it can be 'locked up' for the same number of years I would face if charged with the same crime. This doesn't sound like such a bad deal...each corporation- no matter it's size- having the same rights & responsibilities as me...... but something tells me my idea of 'equal' isn't what they're after.

[countfloyd]

A very good argument. Well done. Violating copyrights and trademarks are against the law however and therefore a criminal investigation is needed.

[itolduso]

Visit the d.o.j. website & you will see that they DO NOT investigate on behalf of individual creators even when presented with evidence of willfull infringement on a massive scale (over 450,000 copies) (I found out the hard way) But the F.B.I. is willing to travel to China (at taxpayer expense) to raid warehouses and fleamarkets on behalf of microsoft & movie studios, and they'll stakeout college campuses and raid dorm rooms on behalf of music studios

[eplebneesta]

We gotta face it: The corporations are first class citizens. Humans are second class. But humans still have more real votes than the Aristocracy. We can vote the country into the hands of the people. Vote out anyone who supports corporate rights over ours. Those who sell out to big corporations and allow them to consume our income and control our lives. Corporate citizens like: pharma, oil, death insurance. Those who allow Wall Street to gorge themselves at our, and the world's, expense. How can there be record profits along with massive employment? Who's getting what used to be our salaries? And who's enabling them to do so? A massive transfer of wealth is happening. These "people" must go. So far, the Aristocracy can only buy politicians and exposure for their minions. We still have enough votes to win.

This is a complete non sequitur , but it's something I've wanted to know about for a long time.
1) Banks are choosing foreclosure over any kind of renegotiation of payments. This gives them a house instead of a stream of admittedly lower income. In our current state of unemployment and poor housing markets this seems to be a bad business decision since they can't easily sell the house. So are these houses sitting around empty and, by definition, worthless?
inquiring minds want to know ;-)

E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Blessed are the cheesemakers.

[eplebneesta]

What if it commits a capital offense? Many corporations are guilty of murder with malice aforethought. Eg Ford with the Pinto.There were documents saying they knew fatalities would occur and placed an actual value on human life calculated that they would still come out ahead.
But I'm not sure if that counts as murder(I think it should)as opposed to some kind of extreme manslaughter.One of the reasons these a-holes incorporate is to prevent any monetary liability.But they should be held accountable for criminal actions.If the corporation causes a death, then the officers caused the death.If they claim they deserve their rapacious salaries and bonuses be they are responsible for the profits that they must be held responsible for everything the corporation does.

But the point is,how would we handle the execution of a corporation?
Where do the assets of an executed criminal go?
Can anyone inherit from a corporation?

The is all verbal self stimulation because until we prevent them from owning our so-called representatives nothing will change at all.At least not for our good.By Odin, the last I heard,the credit-car­d-companie­s were raising their rates to pay for their incompetence.

But we can't forget that these corporations do employ people -- even if they pay the minimum possible wage with the minimum possible benefits -- so drastic actions can be harmful to humans.They got us by the short hairs there.

EPN

[countfloyd]

Okay if corporations aren't people then how do you tax them?

No Taxation Without Representation.

[ainsleyburrows]

China is not a person but we tax them when ever they import goods to the US

@countfloyd...how does it benefit you to have corporations have unlimited influence over elected officials

[Deidroni]

Countfloyd,

Real estate isn't a person and neither is a sales transaction a person but we still have real estate tax and sales tax. Your argument falls flat.

[elvez1975]

Not that I like corporate spending influencing elections, but if we decide that corporations have no rights, is it OK when the government shows up at ACLU headquarters and wants to search without a warrant? Or monitors ACLU communications without a warrant? Or those of a church? Do we really want to eliminate all protections for corporations?

[munro007]

If they do that, they would be looking for the criminal acts of actual people not the corporations. When they went after Maydoff they didn't nail his receptionist as well. But in case you are still undecided...all these Senators who will vote against healthcare insurance reform, but not against 100 fighter jets we don't need...who are they really listening to?

[elvez1975]

No, the government would be able to tap phones/internet of any organization and monitor them. That goes for banks and insurance companies as well as churches, the ACLU, the NRA, Media Matters, Huffington Post, The Church of Hari Krishna, 1st Baptist, whoever. They could, in the spirit of J. Edgar Hoover, effectively monitor everything without a warrant or probable cause.

As far as your distinction between criminal acts of individuals and corporations, this means nothing. An individual might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in corporate/­organizati­onal communications or be granted standing to challenge monitoring of corporate/­organizati­onal communications. This essentially eviscerates the 4th Amendment. No bueno.

Is that the kind of power you want to give the Government?

[RevSpaminator]

Corporations are NOT human beings. They deserve NO rights and have none guaranteed to them under the constitution. The individuals who are executives and share holders have rights and also have responsibilities and can be held accountable for personal actions. Corporations cannot be held accountable for criminal actions. (How do you put a corporation in jail?)

This whole movement of "corporate rights" is BS meant to protect the shareholders and executives of corporations from criminal responsibility as well as financial.

[airhan]

Just called Thom Hartmann's radio show to make sure he saw this. Hartmann is pretty much the lone researcher corporate personhood, check out his book Unequal Protection!!

[breakingpoint]

end corporate personhood

[breakingpoint]

simply stated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJqoJWU43bo

[StopMakingSense2]

Isn't it sad when you have to go to comedy channels to get the most insightful news and commentary..

[msbeal]

Wow, you're so right. You never hear corporate criticism from corporate news channels nor PBS for that matter. The complaint of leftist media is laughable. The opinions of the left are NEVER on the news.

[brett66]

Sounds like we need an amendment to the constitution stating that rights in the constitution granted to individuals are not automatically granted to corporations.

[ragtag]

Like I've said:

http://www.nosoul-nosay.com