Comments on: The Case in Favor of Speech Limits on Corporations

By: EMILY’s List Wins One For The First Amendment « Kicking Over My Traces

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:49:56 +0000

[...] The Case in Favor of Speech Limits on Corporations (themoderatevoice.com) [...]

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:40:02 +0000

Constitutionally protected speech that is politically incorrect, and the object of resentment if not envy, is endangered, as the advocates of court suppression in this case want so dearly.

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:06:56 +0000

Hey here is an idea, let every corporation, labor unions, PAC, special interest group, etc., spend all the money they want on advertizing where and when they wish and rely on the people to take responsibility to judge and weigh that information themself.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:17:12 +0000

Ok, then only give a voice to corporations that have given substantially to charities without any tax deductions. The Sierra Club only exists for the preservation of future generation's access to unspoiled lands. Their entire existence is a non-tax-deductable charity. Labor unions exist soley to promote the wellbeing of anonymous workers across the nation. Again, their entire existence is a non-tax-deductable charity. The yardstick is if the corporation's main function is to just blindly help people they've never met or who they are not making a profit off of, or if they've given substantially to charities. Those corporations who don't put back into the community in significant ways lose their voices.

The age of soulless and barbaric profiteering has ended its reign.

By: Dr J

Dr J — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:33:35 +0000

Joe, the arguments don't make any sense. If I understood them right:

1. Corporations exist at the grace of the government for economic purposes, and we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog. Okay, but labor unions and the Sierra Club are corporations as well. The one exists for economic purposes, the other pursues non-economic but equally focused interests. All ultimately represent the concerns of groups of citizens. Where does the tail stop and the dog start?

2. Corporations are self interested, whereas individuals are civic minded. Well, sometimes. Plenty of corporations recognize that in the long term what best serves their interests is to do right by their customers and communities. Meanwhile plenty of individuals are entirely focused on making money or another ignoble pursuit. I can't fathom who these people are who toss litter out their car windows or what motivates them, but I'm pretty sure they're not corporations. In any case, shall we apportion speech rights based on who has the broadest, noblest intentions? If so, will it be Superdestroyer or Silhouette making the call?

By: TheMagicalSkyFather

TheMagicalSkyFather — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:25:34 +0000

They are parasites that are currently in the process of killing their host which is of course the United States of America. Combine the sole focus of quarterly profits(which was the rule set down by the SC) with the rights of people(again a choice dictated by ex-corporate lawyers on the SC) but none of the responsibilities nor frailties of humans and I think you will find a America's very own frankenstein. If the shackles are removed the republic or what is left of it will whither on the vine and after the next dark age some far away people will tell of the legend of America, where the streets were made of gold but the people thumbed their noses at the gods and were destroyed by their own creations. Atlantis, Rome, these are the places I think of when I ponder what will happen when our nation is further enslaved by corps. Note I did say further.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:31:59 +0000

“So, they have a range of issues at stake that corporations don’t have. Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere, when we’re deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy.”
********

Bingo.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:55:12 +0000

Corporations are currently not allowed to donate any money to politicians. Nor, to my understanding, are they allowed to give to PACS that give hard money to candidates. Why should corporations be any different than law firms that are partnerships?

By: Davebo

Davebo — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:16:42 +0000

If corporations want the right of free speech then I'll compromise.

Since they seem to insist on being considered as individuals let them be. Make stockholders liable for them beyond their own investment.

It's not like they incorporate because they just love the state of Delaware you know. Take away the liability limits their "owners" now enjoy and I guarantee you you'll see thousands of Inc.'s turn into partnerships overnight.

By: Ron Beasley

Ron Beasley — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:14:07 +0000

I think you are wrong. As long as corporations are given the rights of people the SC can simply declare any new election financing unconstitutional – and yes that would be an activist move. I am less than convinced that lawmakers Dem or Rethug would support a “draconian law.”

By: TheMagicalSkyFather

TheMagicalSkyFather — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:33:57 +0000

If they do that expect draconian election financing laws from the current Admin and reps. I could be wrong but I hope I am not, if the SC knocks this down(which would be an activist move) I doubt the left would go gently into that good night.

By: Ron Beasley

Ron Beasley — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:58:24 +0000

The issue here is not free speech but corporate personhood. We are dealing with the Robert's Court here so there is very little doubt the corporations will get exactly what they want and the US will be a little further down the road to fascism.