Shared publicly  - 
 
"I'm Ben, I'm a person. I'm Jerry, I'm a person. Ben & Jerry's ice cream? Not a person." http://www.sanders.senate.gov/savingdemocracy
470
125
Tomohiro Hataya's profile photoConor Gaffney's profile photoDaniel Su's profile photoWayne Daniel's profile photo
87 comments
 
My nickname is Ice cream, therefore I Am Not. 8^)
 
No, ben and jerry's is not a person. It's a part of Unilever; owner of over 400 'brands', one of which is "Ben & Jerry's". Ben and Jerry's is just a brand, Unilever is a 'person'.
 
Unilever is a person, and every corporation is a person. Otherwise, how could you be LOYAL to a corporation?
 
Bacon is not a person. I remain loyal to bacon until I die.
Ron Ruble
+
9
10
9
 
About time someone stated publicly that this was an IDIOTIC decision by the Supremes, that completely twisted the intent of the Constitution
 
+Peter Hitchmough : You should be loyal to that, bacon is helping you reach that final goal :) . I am not trying to scare you, i am more loyal to bacon that you are. I even ask gf to help me manufacture it !!!
 
Corporations are afford the same protections that a person has as in it "prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.". So the government cannot just go into a corporation and take their property and so on. So, a Corporation is not a person, but they should be afford the same protections under the constitution that a natural person has.
 
The US Government is not a person either. At least we can choose what ice cream to buy. Socialism is violence.
 
+Steve Speece We choose our government, too. If we vote in favor of a government that takes a socialist stance on certain issues occasionally, it might be because that's what we want.
And some people would rather have cheap ice cream than no ice cream.
 
The US has about 80 years of Supreme Court decisions, starting back in the 1930's (if memory serves), that says corporations have the same rights as people. The most recent decision was pretty much the only intellectually-correct thing the court could have done, given all those precedents and all the lower court decisions that rely on those precedents.

Our court system is like that. All it takes is for there to be one questionable decision made decades ago, and over time things drift and twist until what comes out is an outrageous opinion that most people find to be complete lunacy.

Fortunately, we have a way to remedy the situation. We can amend the Constitution to note that corporations do not share the same rights as natural people. In that amendment, we could then identify what rights a non-natural entity has.

But be aware that by wading into these waters, other strange and entirely unintended consequences can happen. For example, newspapers are corporations too (as Citizens United notes). How, then, can we prevent the undue influence of corporations and unions in our elections without affecting the right of newspapers to comment on the elections? The weirdness just continues from there. I'm pretty sure that this issue is so complex that it's impossible to fix the one problem without unintentionally creating others.
 
+Paul Hopper Interesting point Paul. In reality it works as you say, but in the end, a corporation is just an agreement, an Incorporation of persons, and the protections you mention, are for those ultimate owners. The law says clearly that all forms of incorporation gotta have humans as the ultimate owners. If you ask executives of intricate corporations they will swear that corporations can own other corporations :)
 
The amendment addresses freedom of the press and preserves it, corporation or not.
Nick B
+
4
5
4
 
Corporations should be allowed to contribute exactly $0 and 0 cents to political campaigns. The government is of the people and for the people, not the corporations, however they may be defined.
The CEO, just like every employee of the corporation, can donate as much of his after tax pay as the law allows. He should not be allowed to donate the corporation's money. If the board of director's thinks money should be donated, they can also donate their own money. They are voters. The corporation is not one.
 
But circular logic is still circular, I drink therefore I scam.
 
Can any of you explain why you waste your time debating politics.
 
+Grandpa Tarkin : I read both the majority opinion and the dissent, and I came away agreeing with the majority. I didn't like it, but in the end I had to agree with their opinion given the history of what came before.
 
In the meaning of Citizen's United obliquely referred to above), formal organizations of people, be they corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, have access to the same rights that the individual people do that own those organizations. That is, you do not give up your rights if you elect to create or own one of these organizations. This true if the organization is a profit entity like a commercial company at one end of the spectrum or a a trade union at the other end. Characterizing the question as "is a corporation a person" misdirects the focus of the argument. Another way to phrase the question is "do people lose their Constitutional rights when they act collectively through a formal organization?" I think it would be very unfortunate if a group of people come toghter to accomplish a legal and constitutional objective (like petition the government to address grievances) and by the very act of coming together through a formal organization face restrictions which bar them from going forward.
 
I asked because the answer that millions will give is to have a voice or make a difference, but why? What examples do we have to support that thought process? Its an idea... Not reality. Spend that time making ur personal life better for you, and those around you.
 
But Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is comprised of people -- and as such the decisions they make together are entitled to the same liberties that individuals have. Duh.
 
UR ice cream is awesome. i love it !!!!!!
 
I really don't get it at all. A group of people can decide to join forces, then spend money to promote a cause and nobody cares. Unions and non-profits have done it for decades and I never seem to hear a complaint - other than the affected side that they don't support. Then anyone who complains is immediatly attacked for being anti-teacher, anti-safety, and anti-environment. If a for-profit entity engages in the same activity - it's somehow different because most of that money is going to the 'other' side? The bottom line is that the Supreme Court was right. There is no difference between these activities. They both pool money and give it to candidates that support their interests. If unions, non-profits, and other special interests get a voice, then why not another similiar group of people that also have a stake in the outcome?

The real problem is in election funding. Face it. PACs are wrong, unions are wrong, special interest groups are wrong, corperations are wrong. There is nothing right with election funding in America right now. Prevent them ALL from being able to influence elections and then maybe you have a point.

In the past, there were news sources that everyone trusted to be fair, and give equal coverage to all sides. The candidates didn't have to bring their message to the people, the news would do that for free, people would listen and be informed. No one that I know believes this is true today. In the end, it's up to each of us to weed through the rhetoric, find out directly from the candidate what it is they believe in, and make our choice. You can no longer afford to be 'informed' by 30 second snippets, biased news sources, and 'comedy' shows. That's how we got here in the first place.

America can be bought. The question is who's allowed to bid?
 
i LOVE your ice cream! heath bar crunch forever! =D
 
+Tomas Elke : Nice analysis. If you saw the huge number of union-sponsored political ads that I've seen on the air here in California over the years, you'd understand how silly some people's reactions to Citizens United really is. Unions can and do spend huge amounts of money influencing elections, and no one says 'boo' about it. Now we're supposed to get all worked up because corporations are going to do the same thing?

I'm with you: if we want to reform how money influences our elections -- and I think we should -- then we have to be prepared to treat all the players in the same way. But, of course, the people who are feeling all the angst don't seem to actually want to do that. Or, at the very least, political spending from unions and non-profits isn't what's causing them all the angst. It's one-sided outrage. Hardly worth taking seriously.
 
Tomas, I believe the point is that all individual citizens of the United States can bid, but some citizens should not be allowed to bid twice or more, once as themselves and more times wearing the guises of artificial persons called corporations in which they have invested. Corporations were created as a way to raise large amounts of capital (to "scale up") in support of their commercial activities. The question is where their legitimate commercial activities end and undermining the democratic process begins. Let the individual owners of these corporations make campaign contributions, in their own names, without a mask.
 
From the URL "savingdemocracy": Translation: "SavingDemocrats"
 
Cherry Garcia is my personal favorite. To be honest, I haven't had a flavor that I did not like~
 
When I visited my parents in Calif I used to go the Ben & Jerrys on Ventura in Sherman Oaks had the best Vanilla with real Cherries inside It was so delish
 
+Steven Fritsche I believe you missed Tomas point. An even playing field is what they are asking for. His point about Unions here in California is the equal and opposite of the corporations. Actually the unions are "first among equal" voters. They essentially directly bribe their bosses. When your paycheck and benefits come from a group that owe you for their jobs and the only people responsible for the financial obligation are the tax payers, who are the ones to curtail the spending?
 
I was just talking about Ben & Jerry's< DELICIOUS, YUMMIE
 
Could you simulate Cornish ice cream from England? With something to do with the rich milk they use,it is the most beautiful ice cream I have ever tasted.Something that tasted like it would be good this side of the pond!
 
add you to my circle you're horny? I would maybe get your message refined a bit before you spam it on every "whats hot post"
 
+Steven Fritsche
This can of worms had been opened long before citizens united. Money has bought and paid for elections in America since it's inception.

However, your argument also must be applied to other entities that do similar actions - such as unions and non-profits - and not just corperations. Both unions and non-profits also take money from a large pool of people and focus it to a point that benifits their position. The net effect for the unions and non-profits is the same as you've described for corperations. If you are saying that these activities are not equivilent, then I'm respectfully in disagreement.

We can all agree there is a problem, but we will likely never come to an agreement on a solution. This conversation is just one more point of evidence of that likely outcome.
 
I'd just be grateful you're not dead :-)
 
+Heather Taylor I seem to have upset you with my comment. Perhaps i should send you some Scarlet Begonias as way of an apology. I know, given the subject matter, a tub of Sugar Magnolia Ripple would suffice.
 
+Grandpa Tarkin Mostly censorship = bad. From the opinion, which speaks for itself; ... Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment , and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. 'Austin' interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment . New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres , 552 U. S. 196. Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations. Pp. 32–40. ...
 
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL:)
 
Can we include unions in this as well? Why do they get to provide money to candidates' election, but when corporations want that same right it's unacceptable.
 
Because unions are "fronts" for the socialist of the world. In their view capatilism is evil and unions are good. Therefore, it is in their best interest to stiffle the voice of capatilism and have the union point of view screamed from every roof top.
 
I personally don't care what the owners or stockholders of a company "support" as individuals, just as I personally don't care what an individual union-member supports.

What I care about is one type of organization being "favored" by Laws and tax-codes (Unions), while another organization (for profit corporation) is punished by Laws and tax-codes. Tax the real-estate and other "investments" of non-profits including Unions and Churches and our tax deficit will begin to disappear.
 
Every Corporation is made up of people so of course companies are people. General Motors is really Gary Michaels and FORD is Fred Oppenheimer and Randy Daley. Bernie Sanders is not a human he is an angel so lets not get mixed up in reality vs. the other dimensions of space and time...
 
That proposed amendment by Bernie Sanders explicitly takes rights away from "for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state." So is a union a private entity established for business purposes? I think they are, but I'll bet Democrats, and possibly even the courts, think they aren't.

Even if labor unions are somehow construed to be bound by this amendment, I'll bet public service unions are not. So they'll be able to continue to spend massive amounts of money to influence elections. They do it already. There's nothing here that will stop them from continuing that odious practice.

Since this is entirely one-sided, I can't get behind it. Call out all unions and non-profits organizations, in addition to for-profit corporations, and I'll be a lot more willing to support this thing. But even then, I'll bet we'll just see corporations, unions and other non-profits do what the NRA did in the face of McCain-Feingold: They'll start their own internet television and radio shows, and then continue to express their point of view right up to election day. After all, doing that makes them "the press." And you can't limit the freedom of the press, can you?
 
Corporations can have rights without being called people. Why political discourse in this country has gotten so absurd, I have no idea, but it is impossible to have an intelligent debate anymore with all this meaningless spin repeated. I mean, of course a corporation is not a person, nor should they have as many rights as a person. Sure, they definitely need rights, but they are not a HUMAN. Yes, they are made up of humans, and each of those humans has their basic inalienable rights (or at least are supposed to).
 
The most amazing flavors ever! I want Ben & Jerry's in Brazil!
 
Love it! (and love their ice cream!
 
They're saying their company isn't a person, despite the position of some who think corps should be considered persons.
Nick B
+
1
2
1
 
+David Charlton In a free, capitalist society, people should be allowed to do what they want with their money. But our laws prohibit individual donations above $2000 in order to prevent a few rich people from having a disproportionate impact on the policies and discourse in this society.
So why is it that now a few rich people can give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, as long it's not their money but a corporation's? This flies in the face of that $2000 limit and once again allows a small group of insiders disproportionate power. It just doesn't make sense.
 
are you sure about this ???????????????>...................!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Right NOW we are living in a society, where corporations hire lobbyists that write the laws of the land at the federal level (with growing power at state level) -- some 1,600 lobbyists are at work on behalf of big business in Washington DC and the laws are introduced and passed by their "puppets" -- The guys and gals the corporations paid an average of about $10 million each to put into office, so they can draw about $174,000 each from the tax payers and get richer via inside trading and other perks of the dirty business that is now called US Congress. Do they care about WE THE PEOPLE? Maybe 20 percent do. The dog and pony show is presented to WE THE PEOPLE via major network TV campaigns, debates, paid Super PAC ads etc. If you don't spend at least $1 million in the opening round on TV ads, the major networks totally ignore you... so forget about DEMOCRACY.. It has been sold to the highest bidder. That is why we should all support Saving American Democracy Amendment: GET $$$ OUT OF POLITICS. +Occupy The Polls
 
I just read up a bit about these guys. I used to buy Ben and Jerry's because they used good ingredients, and they used their money to help people. Now I find out, their not happy with that at all. They would also like to make the government take my money and help those people that they decide needed to be helped. Thanks for this post. Ben and Jerry's Iced cream has gone the way of Cheverolet. It will never be found in my house again. Ben and Jerry, you can suck it.
Add a comment...