It’s even worse in that they are apparently only people when it comes to donations. When the company does something criminal, they are suddenly entities that cannot possibly be punished beyond a fine for less than the crime committed.
So, they changed the laws and made it ineffective, implying it was effective before?
Or you’re saying the incorporation laws were always ineffective against the corporate death penalty, then they changed them to make it… extra ineffective?
It’s even worse in that they are apparently only people when it comes to donations. When the company does something criminal, they are suddenly entities that cannot possibly be punished beyond a fine for less than the crime committed.
You could put the articles of incorporation in a jail cell but I don’t see what that would accomplish…
They used to tear up corporate charters of criminal corporations.
The problem was that it was effective.
lmao how is that effective? “oh no, we’d better write the charter out again boo hoo”
http://www.google.com/
Yeah I did google it and you know, none of the sources said that the practice was abandoned because “it was effective” 🤔
They do talk about how the law around incorporation was changed, making it ineffective. Because the company officers could just recreate the company.
Which is what I said… but sure, be snarky about it if you like!
So, they changed the laws and made it ineffective, implying it was effective before?
Or you’re saying the incorporation laws were always ineffective against the corporate death penalty, then they changed them to make it… extra ineffective?
Yes, revoking corporate charters was effective back when corporations couldn’t just reincorporate. No, that wasn’t “the problem” as you said.
Hopefully we’re all on the same page now.
Well, if it would only be the articles of incorporation deciding on the donations, it wouldnt be a problem.