So I drive back home, open reddit, and what do I see?
The story currently has 5,200 upvotes, and 2,744 comments.
MSNBC says:
In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office.
Nice, let's go have some cake.
Folks, this is another example of a place where the concept of "Free Speech" is not applicable.
How is this not applicable to "free speech"? While I obviously agree that corporations should not bribe politicians and politicians should not accept bribes, I don't see how, in your view, corporations lack the Constitutional right to do as they please with their money. Do you only believe in "free speech" when it's in your best interests?
ReplyDelete@Jimmy: Corporations aren't people/citizens. Your argument is invalid.
ReplyDeleteThey're certainly not people or citizens, but they're run by citizens. Said citizens should be able to exercise their right to free speech through their corporations.
ReplyDelete@Jimmy, what those citizens do for personal interest with their own assets is an entirely different issue. This is about using corporate (most often publicly traded) assets to influence government. This is half of what fascism was -- corporatism.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, a democracy's basic tenet is that the govt is for the people. Money should not be able to affect government; purely to prevent an inevitable imbalance of power. This was one of the reasons why separation of church and state was done.
@Jimmy. Corporations are not people. The shareholders of the corporation already are represented individually through their right to speak and use their money as they like.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme court has just taken a huge leap towards legalized bribery in the USA. The result will be even greater corruption of the political process. Don't have money to influence? .. then forget it. It is a crying shame.
I have to note that I'm neither american citizent nor resident. I haven't even been in USA.
ReplyDelete- How does company speak. I.e. is it possible to distinguish between person speaking in company name and in personal? Isn't easier to just state that goverment should refrain from preventing publications?
- Fascism was corporatism - at least according to Mussolini.
- Teoretically church(es) and goverment(s) are not affecting each other and take care of separate spheres. This is not entirly true with money - central banks are state institutions - either directly or practically (as FED).
- Hmm. I wonder why would it be less democratic then taking your livestock on street, protests of miners etc. which occures in other countries (specific protests might not occure in given countries - those are examples from all world). Ok - I don't belive in democracy (I'm anarchist) but why would "poor" (read usually those who manage to presents themself as poor in given situation) the "rich" (read those presented as poor but usually stragling from day to day w/out money for lawer for finding workarounds and loopholes)?