Sentence examples for corporations differently from inspiring English sources

The Germans -- who have been very successful economically since World War II -- control their corporations differently.

President Obama was right in his criticism of the Supreme Court majority in his SOTU last week -- for over 100 years, federal law and courts had treated corporations differently than people when it came to political donations and First Amendment rights.

In the majority's opinion, courts are no longer permitted to take into consideration elements such as limited liability, perpetual life and preferential tax treatment that distinguish a corporation from an individual citizen when analyzing a corporation's rights, nor are courts allowed to treat corporations differently from actual persons (as they have been doing since the country's founding).

Here it suffices to note that each stakeholder group draws upon different types of power where the legal, financial and institutional power of the government and corporation, while differently constituted, locates and legitimises ongoing human and financial resources to these entities.

According to a dissent written by Justice Stevens (and echoed by President Obama in his remarks), the opinion also overturned more than a century of precedent treating corporations and individuals differently for purposes of free speech.

Proponents of inclusive capitalism want corporations to behave differently.

Another favored canard McConnell likes to trot out is that the DISCLOSE Act treats corporations and unions differently.

The two sides play quite differently: Corporations play a bluffing game, setting up defences and punishing the runner for diving too deep while trying to protect their Agendas long enough to score them for points.

A British media outfit doing unpleasant things to British people in Britain is probably not enough to force the FCC's hand, reckons Ms Arbogast.The Digger in AmericaRupert Murdoch and News Corporation are viewed differently in America from the way they are seen elsewhere.

But large publicly traded corporations are treated much differently because it is difficult to ascribe the same type of criminal mentality to an organization as one can to an individual.

In her argument in Citizens United in September, she expressly rejected that equalization rationale as a basis to regulate corporate speech, though she did defend the central precedent at issue in the case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, on other grounds, including that corporations may be treated differently from individuals.