JSA wrote:
wasusnowme wrote:
Moonrocket wrote:
How is it not considered a bribe to a public official? Or a kickback?
It's an 'incentive'. This is straight from the people who gave us the idea that a corporation has the same rights as a person.
The Koch brothers gave us that idea? Really?
Interesting. And here I thought the concept was determined in the United States in 1790. See,
The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College (7 Va. 573; 1790, Supreme Court of Virginia).
Then, of course, in 1818, the US Supreme Court decided
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Beginning with this opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
Then, of course, in 1886, the US Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to corporations. We saw the expansion of corporate rights as "persons" By the US Supreme Court in 1906, 1938, 1949, 1957, 1978 and so on.
But, I'm certain you know more about this than I, so, please, carry on ...
Is it correct that it is also the concept that allows a corporation to be sued for wrongdoings rather than its shareholders?