Should Jason Bateman be a corporation?

[Syrinx]

This is really a request for clarification on the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision.

Someone made a post that called Jason Bateman a Republican. I didn't think that sounded right. So I looked up Mr. Bateman's political contributions.

I only got four listings. A total of $825 to something called the Hollywood Women's Political Committee. I don't really know what that is, but it sounds like it might be kind of liberal. A couple grand to Dianne Feinstein. Not my favorite Democrat, but she is a Democrat.

And Mr. Bateman's most recent political contribution was during the general election campaign in 2008. It was $2,300 to Barack Obama.

I think that was the maximum amount that an individual was allowed to donate to that campaign. Or to McCain's, for that matter. Am I correct about that?

If so, does that limit still exist?

Does Citizens United mean that if Mr. Bateman simply forms a corporation (have his lawyer file a paper), his corporation can then give unlimited amounts to any campaign that he wants to?

Of course, this isn't really about Jason Bateman.

What I'm getting at is did the Supreme Court say not only that corporations are "people," for legal purposes, but also that corporations are legally "super-people" that have more rights than mere "people?" That ordinary people can be limited in their donations, but that the super-people can give as much as they are able?

I think corporate donations should be totally illegal, and that only flesh-and-blood individuals should be allowed to participate in the political process. But even if we've lost that battle, I don't like the idea that corporations have even more, totally unlimited, "legal rights."

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Syrinx, I have to apologize. I said that about Bateman and I was wrong. Sorry gang.

I don't know how I mixed them up, but it was Rick Schroeder that I was confusing.

In answer to the bulk of your question. I am not sure, but I see where you are going and that is a really good point.

[Syrinx]

2. no problem Gary

I'm not a friend of Jason or anything. :) It just got me to thinking about the whole Citizens United deal.

Peace!

[ejpoeta]

3. doesn't citizens united have to do with PACs? it allows unlimited secret

money funneled through PACs and super PACs to be used in political ads as long as the candidates aren't involved. That's why Sarah Palin isn't actually running. She can spend all that money on whatever she wants until she actually runs. But they can use their PAC money to do ads in any state for whatever reason.... swiftboating ads, ads against gay marriage in ny, anti union ads, we'll probably see ones about SB5 in Ohio, and it goes on and on. And with that unlimited money mostly right wing and rich people money and corporation money how can the little people compete?