Corporate campaign ads starting this fall

Cardinal Direction said:
It re-enshrines the ridiculous notion that corporations are the equal of 'people.' I sincerely doubt when the founding fathers wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," they intended this to apply to legal fictions, but rather to real natural persons. Can a corporation exercise its freedom of religion? Can it go to church on Sunday? Can a corporation freely 'assemble' to demonstrate against the government?
Click to expand...

Corporations are not people, they are super-people. They have the ability to do things that no human can possibly do. For example, corporations can be broken up or spun off into smaller corporations, or merge into one larger corporation. Also, corporations can simultaneously be present in multiple countries. Furthermore, there are corporations that have no employees or assets, and only exist on paper. There is nothing inherently person-like about an entity that exists regardless of its physical manifestation, and to give such an entity "free speech" is absolute madness. This case leaves me wondering where the line will be drawn regarding what personal rights we afford to a corporation. Could a fraudster responsible for bankrupting a company be charged with murder?
 
You should see Alternatehistory.com's reaction to this. The Thread looked like prisonplanet with gems that would be stundie worthy.

But unfortunately, it's in the member's only section. :(
 
WildCat said:
The idiot doesn't seem to realize his company is a corporation, and if he had his way Congress could pass a law muzzling him and forbidding his network from broadcasting any political commentary at all.
Click to expand...

If you saw a Truther engaging in the same type of over-reaching straw man arguments you've been making in this thread, you would mock them mercilessly.
 
johnny karate said:
If you saw a Truther engaging in the same type of over-reaching straw man arguments you've been making in this thread, you would mock them mercilessly.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman. It's an inference from what the government was arguing before the SCOTUS. As Scalia noted in his opinion:
And the notion which follows from the dissent’s view, that modern newspapers, since they are incorporated, have free-speech rights only at the sufferance of Congress, boggles the mind.
Click to expand...
 
Pointing to another straw man in defense of your own doesn't make a very compelling argument.
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
That doesn't make it a straw man. Do you even know what that term means?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that's what made it a straw man. You suggested that since it's part of a SCOTUS decision, it therefore wasn't a straw man. I was explaining why I felt this sentiment to be erroneous.
 
WildCat said:
It's not a strawman. It's an inference from what the government was arguing before the SCOTUS. As Scalia noted in his opinion:
Click to expand...

Scalia Decision; said:
And the notion which follows from the dissent’s view, that modern newspapers, since they are incorporated, have free-speech rights only at the sufferance of Congress, boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

johnny karate said:
Pointing to another straw man in defense of your own doesn't make a very compelling argument.
Click to expand...

johnny karate said:
I didn't say that's what made it a straw man. You suggested that since it's part of a SCOTUS decision, it therefore wasn't a straw man. I was explaining why I felt this sentiment to be erroneous.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You think donating to certain candidates for certain favorable legislation isn't a business decision? Seriously?
Click to expand...

That is a business decision and already going on via corporate lobbys. But what if Exxon starts campaigning for gun control? Who's "speech" is that?

And don't say the shareholders can sell their shares or try to drum up support for firings, that's like saying "if your pocket is picked, leave". Helpful advice, but it doesn't exactly cut to the heart of the problem.

I don't see a compelling reason why small groups of corporate leaders should be allowed to concentrate the free speech of a large, diverse, and changing group of shareholders into the palms of their hands. Those shareholders already have complete free speech individually and have already made a choice to use certain assets to seek profit instead of supporting a candidate or cause. Why then does the corporation need to have it's own independent right to dedicate that wealth to politics?

Another fear I have is that politically polarizing corporations will bring corporations not just closer to government but closer to each other as well. Uniting big corps in common causes is just plain disconcerting from a consumer standpoint.
 
Yeah, in the days before McCain-Feingold, corporations controlled all thought and created thought oligopolies. Corporations being in bed with politicians died when McCain-Feingold was passed. The supreme court is returning us to that state of anarchy.

I am scared not only for my country, but for the children.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
That is a business decision and already going on via corporate lobbys. But what if Exxon starts campaigning for gun control? Who's "speech" is that?
Click to expand...

The owners of the company, i.e. the shareholders.

Emperor_Gestahl said:
And don't say the shareholders can sell their shares or try to drum up support for firings, that's like saying "if your pocket is picked, leave". Helpful advice, but it doesn't exactly cut to the heart of the problem.
Click to expand...

Is there some reason they can't sell their shares?

Emperor_Gestahl said:
I don't see a compelling reason why small groups of corporate leaders should be allowed to concentrate the free speech of a large, diverse, and changing group of shareholders into the palms of their hands.
Click to expand...

For the same reason they are allowed to concentrate the decision to purchase a building into their hands. Not all shareholders may think it's a good idea. Again, I ask - should there be a shareholder vote on every decision made by the company? Because I'm pretty sure that's what the board of directors is for.

Emperor_Gestahl said:
Those shareholders already have complete free speech individually and have already made a choice to use certain assets to seek profit instead of supporting a candidate or cause. Why then does the corporation need to have it's own independent right to dedicate that wealth to politics?
Click to expand...

Those shareholders also have complete freedom to purchase buildings on their own. Why then does the corporation need to have it's own independent right to dedicate that wealth to real estate transactions?

Emperor_Gestahl said:
Another fear I have is that politically polarizing corporations will bring corporations not just closer to government but closer to each other as well. Uniting big corps in common causes is just plain disconcerting from a consumer standpoint.
Click to expand...

Is uniting large groups of citizens into common causes equally disconcerting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom