Most "corporate" donations to super PACs are illegal (companies, dollars)

[pbmaise]

It is possible for a single person in the United States to become incorporated.

If that person made a big donation, they could be hauled in front of a Court and asked to prove it was the corporation and really not the individual.

A one person corporation would have a hard time proving that.

This also holds for big corporation where a single or small group of individuals control the ability of the corporation to direct a contribution.

The contribution may be judged to be from an individual and not from a corporation.

This is called reasonable person test and common law.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

It is possible for a single person in the United States to become incorporated.

(yawn)

Go ahead and try to become a one-man corporation, then come back here and tell us how successful you were at it.

At least one thing will then be true: You will have some knowledge of what you are talking about.

Or at least, you can't possibly have any less knowledge about it, than you do now.

[evilnewbie]

I am curious as to how a one-man corporation can produce enough profit in a short amount of time to show that it is a political contribution from a corporation? I think most corporate donations would be legal because most of them will be from companies that actually produce a profit... you can't donate money a company didn't earn otherwise it would be an individual donation... I don't know who are donating to Super Pacs but I bet most of them are not illegal...

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

It is possible for a single person in the United States to become incorporated.

If that person made a big donation, they could be hauled in front of a Court and asked to prove it was the corporation and really not the individual.

A one person corporation would have a hard time proving that.

This also holds for big corporation where a single or small group of individuals control the ability of the corporation to direct a contribution.

The contribution may be judged to be from an individual and not from a corporation.

This is called reasonable person test and common law.

Unions and their incestuous relationship with the DNC still OK?

[pbmaise]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

(yawn)

Go ahead and try to become a one-man corporation, then come back here and tell us how successful you were at it.

At least one thing will then be true: You will have some knowledge of what you are talking about.

Or at least, you can't possibly have any less knowledge about it, than you do now.

Lets make that a partially correct. It depends on your State if legal. Here is Business Week article.

Setting Up a One-Person Corporation

[natalie469]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Unions and their incestuous relationship with the DNC still OK?

If the unions backed the republicans would you still be against them and why.

[pbmaise]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Unions and their incestuous relationship with the DNC still OK?

The United States is based upon laws that afford equal protection.

The laws of justice are not balanced when

One side has 1 billionaire that makes a $10,000,000 contribution

and it takes

100,000 union members to balance it out.

Money may be balanced..however...money isn't what the law is about.

[pbmaise]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

I am curious as to how a one-man corporation can produce enough profit in a short amount of time to show that it is a political contribution from a corporation? I think most corporate donations would be legal because most of them will be from companies that actually produce a profit... you can't donate money a company didn't earn otherwise it would be an individual donation... I don't know who are donating to Super Pacs but I bet most of them are not illegal...

You can review who is donating to super PACs at a website called Open Secrets.

What you will quickly notice is that the bulk of funds come form either individuals or from corporations where it is pretty clear that an individual is the one that caused the donation to be made.

There are for example cases where a single individual made a big donation in their own name, and then in the name of their corporation..which happens to only be different since it has the letters INC after it.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by natalie469

If the unions backed the republicans would you still be against them and why.

I oppose all laundering of tax dollars through organizations seeking to buy favorable legislation.

NFN...Why would unions support Republicans?

We don't have the crybaby mentality needed to be good union members.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

The United States is based upon laws that afford equal protection.

The laws of justice are not balanced when

One side has 1 billionaire that makes a $10,000,000 contribution

and it takes

100,000 union members to balance it out.

Money may be balanced..however...money isn't what the law is about.

The public gets screwed in either case.