WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacsFollow

Disregarding that niggling little act in the 1800s that gives corporations the right of a living citizen, it's still not entirely accurate to say that GE speaks for everyone employed there as a group. I doubt I'd be far off the mark to say that GE's contributions would be better classified as speech on behalf of the board members. To take away GE's right (as it stands) to 'speech' doesn't take away the rights of the individuals comprising the group to donate in their own name.

I don't see why they have all of the rights of individual citizens when they certainly don't have all the responsibilities nor the liabilities.

Right. That's what I was trying to get at but not succeeding.

They speak for the company, which is the common purpose. Without the company, there is no job. Without the job, there is no car. Without the car, there is less nookie.

To take away GE's right (as it stands) to 'speech' doesn't take away the rights of the individuals comprising the group but it does take away the rights of the group, which still has rights because it is comprised of individuals.

The writers don't publish the stories, though.

I don't think that's covered by the first amendment. Publishers are under no obligation to publish a specific writers work, that writer simply has the right to produce it, and to make it available in whatever way he can. Of course freedom of speech covers the right of a publisher to put any writers work in his publication, (aside from hate stuff and libel, depending on country), but I still see that as protecting the writers right, and not the publishers.

That whole "free press" thing in the first amendment? Doesn't apply to the publishing of news? Really? Of course it doesn't say a company has to publish something. It says government can't tell them not to. That applies to the writers as well as the publishers.

Corporate laws are constitutional? Corporate laws are made up state to state and the fed does have some overlaying laws but you don't give up your rights as an individual just because you work for a corporation or because you own one. The Corp's are given rights outlined constitutionally because we made them a single legal entity. Nothing more.



Which make them and you wrong.

Edited, Feb 4th 2010 5:03pm by Kaelesh

Their rights don't stem from the fact that they are a group of individuals, they have rights because of a court decision in 1886 that declares corporations to have personhood and all the rights that entails.

The First Amendment is also not entirely unrestricted. When it is prudent to restrict it in some very few instances, such as when it crosses the line into harassment, it is. While the right to fair elections isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, I do believe fair elections are necessary for the proper functioning of a democratic republic. Although I understand the implications and precedents that could be set by a ruling to restrict the corporate financing of elections, it severely tilts the balance of power into the hands of the top 1%.

I don't believe that a poor person will ever have the same amount of influence as a wealthy person on politics, and I believe it's futile and destructive to try to reach this end, but that doesn't mean some amount of parity can't be reached.


Edited, Feb 4th 2010 4:51pm by Sweetums

I would be naïve if I were actually expecting it

I understand you, I just disagree.

I'm not removing anything. I am giving similar stature.

Can you vote?