Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The Citizens United ruling by the US Supreme Court™ was a landmark decision in which the justices could not find constitutional justification for keeping corporations out of the hallowed and traditional institution of political campaign contributions. Every US citizen who was not a corporation was united against Citizens United, and we all still are. However, the court has clearly and correctly decided that the issue of rights– even the rights of corporations– should never be left up to popular vote. The upshot of this decision is that, without restriction or qualification, corporations are people.
==Corporations as people==
===Competition===
The decision may adversely affect the conduct of traditional capitalist competition, as it will now be considered a felony when one corporation is directly responsible for the demise of a competing corporation. It must now be considered at least an act of manslaughter if not murder, and the guilty corporation should be prosecutable to the full extent of the law. The distinction between levels of this crime may ride on how aggressively the guilty corporation pursued the defunct corporation's demise.
===Mergers===
Mergers and acquisitions will now need to be very carefully examined by the appropriate authorities, taking into consideration issues that were never important before. For example, a company's gender identity will be important to establish before certain mergers can be allowed to take place in many states. It is unlikely that the merging of, say, Maxim and GQ magazines would stand up to legal scrutiny in Alabama, per that state's to its constitution, which prohibits unions between two people of the same gender.
===Failures===
Most states have strict anti-suicide laws, so it will be illegal now for any corporation to shut itself down for any reason. In the past, corporations have been allowed to shut down if they felt the need to due to financial woes or for any other reason. But now, when a corporation begins to feel so depressed that it starts contemplating dissolution, perhaps taxpayer-funded corporate failure prevention hotlines will need to be set up.
===Start-ups===
Among the most contentious of these new issues is the question of when a corporation's life begins. If it begins, as some would contend, the moment it opens it doors to the public, then it is acceptable for the parent of a corporation to decide to abort the effort any time up until that day. However, there are many who feel that the life of a corporation begins as soon as the idea for it is conceived. If this is the case, it clearly should be unlawful to decide not to go ahead and gestate the idea until such time as it is ready to open for business. This issue may never be resolved, as both sides remain deeply entrenched in their opinions.
==Politics==
As you may have already realized, any corporation that is a natural-born US Citizen and has been in business at least 35 years may now serve in the office of President of the United States if it is duly elected. Therefore it will surely not be long before President Wal✽Mart is sworn into office. There are political observers who maintain that this state of affairs may not be conducive to the functioning of government.
==Positive aspects==
There are a few positive aspects of the notion of corporations as people. For instance, soon the State of Texas will begin packing death row with the worst of the violent, predatory corporations and injecting them with that sweet Texas cocktail. That will be nice. Also, very soon we will see our young, patriotic corporations lining up at armed forces recruitment offices, ready to go fight and die to defend our freedoms. These corporations must be honored and supported.
The next time you take a stroll down Wall Street, be sure to tip your hat to any passing corporation– it has feelings too. And the money and clout to back them up. My friend.
Category:United States Supreme Court cases
Category:FA USA
Category:FA Law
Category:FA Politics
Category:Law