# Corporations to the rescue in Georgia **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 28, 2016, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468 "2016-03-28T16:31:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/41 "2016-03-29T16:03:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > EXACTLY. That’s my point. It’s still the power of money, and to criticize it in one case but cheer it in another is hypocritical. If so, then I’ll recommend that activists be a little more nuanced in their language. I still hold that it’s entirely reasonable to criticize Citizens United, and corporate spending on SuperPACs and ads, which is the primary point of the criticism, while also praising corporations who use influence against discrimination. > [@](#): > > Let’s be clear - they are just as unhappy about OPEN donations and ads as “secretive” ones. Cite? > [@](#): > > But see, that’s just the other massive hypocrisy that happens when the vast majority of people who say that corporations shouldn’t use money to influence policy say that they should be banned from doing so because…they have no speech rights at all. Even when NOT spending money. What does this even mean? How would this movement stop corporations from doing this? Are you saying that corporate letters and press releases would suddenly become illegal? I don’t understand how you’re getting from point A to point B – how would any of this stuff lead to “corporations no longer can write letters or issue press releases”? How would they be stopped from doing so? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/42 "2016-03-29T16:03:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What this shows is that you ignore what many have pointed before to make a very silly point. Corporations are indeed bad when thanks to their economical power can and do influence the government for issues that cause more harm than good. Um, wait - your second sentence supports my point fully. Unless you’re trying to say that corporations are bad whenever you dont’ like them, but are good when you do like them. And that would be, well, a very silly point. > [@](#): > > But the biggest error in the OP comes from the idea that there is no nuance, the OP just implies that there is nothing good whatsoever being done by corporations. And/or that there are many liberals that cannot tell the difference. I think many do, thank you very much. But many don’t. My beef is with those who don’t. That’s not an error. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/43 "2016-03-29T16:06:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If so, then I’ll recommend that activists be a little more nuanced in their language. I still hold that it’s entirely reasonable to criticize Citizens United, and corporate spending on SuperPACs and ads, which is the primary point of the criticism, while also praising corporations who use influence against discrimination. They can’t possibly be “nuanced” without destroying their own argument. Either corporations have speech rights, or they don’t. > [@](#): > > Cite? Already cited earlier. And again, I shouldn’t have to cite it. It should be common knowledge. > [@](#): > > What does this even mean? How would this movement stop corporations from doing this? Are you saying that corporate letters and press releases would suddenly become illegal? I don’t understand how you’re getting from point A to point B – how would any of this stuff lead to “corporations no longer can write letters or issue press releases”? How would they be stopped from doing so? YES. That is what THEY are saying. They are saying that corporations have NO SPEECH RIGHTS, or at least that they shouldn’t have any speech rights. It’s very clear. And I cited it. YES, it’s stupid and makes no sense. That’s what I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/44 "2016-03-29T16:06:38Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Unless you’re trying to say that corporations are bad whenever you dont’ like them, but are good when you do like them. And that would be, well, a very silly point. Ha ha! Liberals think it’s bad to do bad things, but okay to do good things! Hypocrites! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/45 "2016-03-29T16:11:51Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > They can’t possibly be “nuanced” without destroying their own argument. Either corporations have speech rights, or they don’t. Still don’t get it, even if corporations don’t have free speech rights. How does “no 1st amendment speech rights” lead to “can’t write letters or press releases”? How would this be stopped? If this movement succeeded, what would happen to a corporate letter or press release that goes out – what leads you to believe that these letters/press releases would be banned under such a scenario? > [@](#): > > Already cited earlier. And again, I shouldn’t have to cite it. It should be common knowledge. Then you’re reading it differently then me, since I don’t see anything about criticism of open and public advertisements. > [@](#): > > YES. That is what THEY are saying. They are saying that corporations have NO SPEECH RIGHTS, or at least that they shouldn’t have any speech rights. It’s very clear. And I cited it. > > YES, it’s stupid and makes no sense. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t get it. How does “no speech rights” = “can’t write letters and press releases”? What I don’t get is the leap that _you’re_ making, not the leap that the activists are making. How would their policy outlaw writing press releases and letters? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/46 "2016-03-29T16:22:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Still don’t get it, even if corporations don’t have free speech rights. How does “no 1st amendment speech rights” lead to “can’t write letters or press releases”? How would this be stopped? I have to explain this? If corporations had no First Amendment speech rights, the government could make a law making it a crime for a corporation to write a letter or press release. > [@](#): > > If this movement succeeded, what would happen to a corporate letter or press release that goes out – what leads you to believe that these letters/press releases would be banned under such a scenario? I didn’t say I think they’d be banned. I said the government would have the power to ban them. It’s wrong and unwise to give the government that power even if you think it wouldn’t use it (which is not a given). > [@](#): > > Then you’re reading it differently then me, since I don’t see anything about criticism of open and public advertisements. Oh, come on! It’s about Citizens United which was about ads! The whole point is that they don’t like corporate ads. I’m sorry for the frustration, but you need to read up on this. They want to ban spending by corporations on political speech, period. I thought everyone understood that. That’s what all this Super PAC stuff is all about. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > I don’t get it. How does “no speech rights” = “can’t write letters and press releases”? What I don’t get is the leap that _you’re_ making, not the leap that the activists are making. How would their policy outlaw writing press releases and letters? Are you saying you don’t understand that letters and press releases are protected speech under the First Amendment? Or are you saying that just because we take away a First Amendment protection, the government might still choose not to use it’s power? If it’s the latter, ask yourself if you think we should abolish the entire Bill of Rights under the same presumption. If it’s the former, I don’t know what to tell you. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/47 "2016-03-29T16:24:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Ha ha! Liberals think it’s bad to do bad things, but okay to do good things! Hypocrites! Um, you realize I was mocking the poster for thinking such a ridiculous thing, right? Because the liberals I’m referring to DON’T believe this. What they say is they want to ban ALL corporate speech. Nothing about “except when it’s good speech.” Either speech rights exist, or they don’t. You cannot condition them on whether they are “used to do good things” with your definition of “good.” I’m surprised I have to explain that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/48 "2016-03-29T16:33:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I have to explain this? > > If corporations had no First Amendment speech rights, the government could make a law making it a crime for a corporation to write a letter or press release. So what? What does this have to do with the movement? It’s about banning specific practices of corporations, not all speech of corporations. I see no reason to believe that the movement would favor such a government law banning letters and press releases (which seems beyond the realm of possibility). I’m not sure if I believe that corporations should be protected by the first Amendment, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t oppose such a law that tried to ban letters or press releases. > [@](#): > > Oh, come on! It’s about Citizens United which was about ads! The whole point is that they don’t like corporate ads. I’m sorry for the frustration, but you need to read up on this. They want to ban spending by corporations on political speech, period. I thought everyone understood that. That’s what all this Super PAC stuff is all about. Most of the criticism and language I’ve heard or read has been about fighting secret and nigh-unlimited spending, not open and small-scale advertisements. That’s what’s gotten people angry – not letters, press releases, or open and small ads. > [@](#): > > Are you saying you don’t understand that letters and press releases are protected speech under the First Amendment? > > Or are you saying that just because we take away a First Amendment protection, the government might still choose not to use it’s power? Neither, really – I’m saying that it’s entirely consistent and reasonable to believe that the 1st amendment shouldn’t apply to corporations, while also believing that they should not be restricted in writing letters or press releases. How could this even be stopped? Would they be fined for any letters that went out? Would the guy putting it in the mailbox be arrested? It doesn’t make sense to me – I don’t see a mechanism in which writing letters and press releases could possibly be restricted if this movement succeeded. > [@](#): > > If it’s the latter, ask yourself if you think we should abolish the entire Bill of Rights under the same presumption. > > If it’s the former, I don’t know what to tell you. This is about protections for corporations, not people. I’m not sure if the Bill of Rights should apply to corporations, but that doesn’t mean that I support the government seizing property or quartering soldiers inside office buildings. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/49 "2016-03-29T16:35:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Um, you realize I was mocking the poster for thinking such a ridiculous thing, right? > > Because the liberals I’m referring to DON’T believe this. What they say is they want to ban ALL corporate speech. Nothing about “except when it’s good speech.” > > Either speech rights exist, or they don’t. You cannot condition them on whether they are “used to do good things” with your definition of “good.” I’m surprised I have to explain that. Where do they say that they want to “ban ALL corporate speech”? Your cite doesn’t say this at all. “Corporations shouldn’t have constitutional rights” is entirely different than “corporations should not be allowed any speech at all”. Your leap still doesn’t make sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/50 "2016-03-29T16:42:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Where do they say that they want to “ban ALL corporate speech”? Your cite doesn’t say this at all. “Corporations shouldn’t have constitutional rights” is entirely different than “corporations should not be allowed any speech at all”. > > Your leap still doesn’t make sense to me. Good luck, dude. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/51 "2016-03-29T16:42:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So what? What does this have to do with the movement? It’s about banning specific practices of corporations, not all speech of corporations. I see no reason to believe that the movement would favor such a government law banning letters and press releases (which seems beyond the realm of possibility). It doesn’t matter. They want to remove ALL SPEECH RIGHTS of corporations. Period. Would you agree to removal of all your speech rights with the assurance that the government probably will only actually take some of them? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure if I believe that corporations should be protected by the first Amendment, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t oppose such a law that tried to ban letters or press releases. That’s cool. > [@](#): > > Most of the criticism and language I’ve heard or read has been about fighting secret and nigh-unlimited spending, not open and small-scale advertisements. That’s what’s gotten people angry – not letters, press releases, or open and small ads. Then you aren’t paying attention. The talk about secretive spending is prevailing because that’s all that’s left for them to do without violating the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Neither, really – I’m saying that it’s entirely consistent and reasonable to believe that the 1st amendment shouldn’t apply to corporations, while also believing that they should not be restricted in writing letters or press releases. That is an absolutely illogical statement. > [@](#): > > How could this even be stopped? Would they be fined for any letters that went out? Would the guy putting it in the mailbox be arrested? YES! Of course! That’s how it is done. When speech is not a right, you get in legal trouble for speaking. Why do I have to explain that? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t make sense to me – I don’t see a mechanism in which writing letters and press releases could possibly be restricted if this movement succeeded. Turn that statement on its head - can you possibly see a mechanism for a corporation to say the government can’t do it? If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, then what? > [@](#): > > This is about protections for corporations, not people. I’m not sure if the Bill of Rights should apply to corporations, but that doesn’t mean that I support the government seizing property or quartering soldiers inside office buildings. Yes it does. It means exactly that. If corporations have no rights, they have no rights. Period. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/52 "2016-03-29T16:48:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Where do they say that they want to “ban ALL corporate speech”? Your cite doesn’t say this at all. “Corporations shouldn’t have constitutional rights” is entirely different than “corporations should not be allowed any speech at all”. > > Your leap still doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sorry for the imprecise language, I didn’t expect to have to explain this in the first place. Let’s start over. In response to corporations using their speech rights to participate in politics, these people are trying to remove the right of speech for corporations. It’s not a leap to say that they would want to ban all corporate speech about politics, including speech that doesn’t involve spending money, such as ads. They may not want to ban all corporate speech - but they are calling for giving the government the power to do so. My point was that this is not just about spending money on corporate speech - it includes speech that involves little or no money, such as news releases. News releases COULD be banned under movetoamend’s proposal. No, we cannot say whether the government would actually ban any speech, or what kinds, were this amendment to pass. I hope that’s more clear. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/53 "2016-03-29T16:58:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It doesn’t matter. They want to remove ALL SPEECH RIGHTS of corporations. Period. > > Would you agree to removal of all your speech rights with the assurance that the government probably will only actually take some of them? LOL – I wouldn’t agree with the government regulating my bodily emissions (or the personal biological emissions of other humans) – does that mean I’m a hypocrite for supporting environmental regulations on the emissions of corporations? > [@](#): > > That’s cool. > > Then you aren’t paying attention. > > The talk about secretive spending is prevailing because that’s all that’s left for them to do without violating the Constitution. No idea what you’re saying here, except that you seem to be agreeing with me – the criticism is mostly about secretive and massive spending, not any and all spending and influence for any reason. > [@](#): > > That is an absolutely illogical statement. That’s cool. 🙂 > [@](#): > > YES! Of course! That’s how it is done. When speech is not a right, you get in legal trouble for speaking. Why do I have to explain that? What? So in Soviet Russia, people couldn’t talk? Letters were illegal? How did society function if communication was against the law? I think I’ve read a science fiction story in which people couldn’t communicate, but that’s about the only time I’ve ever heard or seen it. Talk about strange use of hyperbole… > [@](#): > > Turn that statement on its head - can you possibly see a mechanism for a corporation to say the government can’t do it? If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, then what? Then people speak up and advocate for good laws – people whose rights are protected. Why would the Bill of Rights apply to corporations? Maybe there’s a good argument that they do, but you haven’t presented it that I’ve seen. Suppose that corporations can now have their advertisements restricted by law – billboards must be smaller than X, advertisements must not air during the hours of y and z, etc. In fact, I’m pretty sure there are various restrictions on advertisements already in some localities. > [@](#): > > Yes it does. It means exactly that. If corporations have no rights, they have no rights. Period. You can’t have it both ways. “They have no rights” doesn’t = “ban all speech”. Where does that leap come from? Are you assuming that the government would make it illegal for corporations to use any form of communication? What makes you believe this is at all feasible or likely? The government can regulate the environmental effects of corporate operations and actions in some circumstances. Does this mean that the government can mandate that corporations emit zero pollutants, including biological methane from their employees? I’m pretty sure that there’s no Bill of Rights protection for corporations from having their emissions regulated, and yet there seems to be zero danger of the government deeming that employee biological emissions are illegal. So if “government can regulate emissions of corporations” doesn’t mean that a fear of “government bans corporate employee bio emissions” is reasonable, then why does “government can regulate corporate speech” mean that a fear that “government bans all corporate speech” would be reasonable? If this stuff were to move forward, I see no more reason to be worried about the government banning all corporate speech than to be worried about the government banning all corporate employee biological emissions. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/54 "2016-03-29T17:17:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > LOL – I wouldn’t agree with the government regulating my bodily emissions (or the personal biological emissions of other humans) – does that mean I’m a hypocrite for supporting environmental regulations on the emissions of corporations? No, because we both know they aren’t the same thing. You are happy with the government regulating the tailpipe emissions of your car, right? That’s the proper analogy. Moving on… > [@](#): > > No idea what you’re saying here, except that you seem to be agreeing with me – the criticism is mostly about secretive and massive spending, not any and all spending and influence for any reason. Nope. The criticism is about all spending. The reason you aren’t aware is because, having lost that one in court, most have moved on to the only thing left - public disclosure. > [@](#): > > What? So in Soviet Russia, people couldn’t talk? Letters were illegal? How did society function if communication was against the law? Are you saying we should be happy with Soviet Russia’s standards of free speech? > [@](#): > > Then people speak up and advocate for good laws – people whose rights are protected. Why would the Bill of Rights apply to corporations? Because the bill of rights protects SPEECH. The speaker doesn’t matter. If only people have rights, then churches, non-profit groups, media companies, clubs, lobbying groups like the ACLU (which agrees with me by the way) or NAACP or NOW, etc. would also have no rights, including speech rights. Does that make sense? > [@](#): > > Maybe there’s a good argument that they do, but you haven’t presented it that I’ve seen. Suppose that corporations can now have their advertisements restricted by law – billboards must be smaller than X, advertisements must not air during the hours of y and z, etc. In fact, I’m pretty sure there are various restrictions on advertisements already in some localities. None of them are based on the status of the speaker though. > [@](#): > > “They have no rights” doesn’t = “ban all speech”. Where does that leap come from? Are you assuming that the government would make it illegal for corporations to use any form of communication? What makes you believe this is at all feasible or likely? It is feasible. It’s not likely. But the point is that it would give them the power to do so. It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that they would try to ban all speech about politics by corporations. > [@](#): > > The government can regulate the environmental effects of corporate operations and actions in some circumstances. Does this mean that the government can mandate that corporations emit zero pollutants, including biological methane from their employees? I’m pretty sure that there’s no Bill of Rights protection for corporations from having their emissions regulated, and yet there seems to be zero danger of the government deeming that employee biological emissions are illegal. Even if you could make that comparison, as I’ve already shown is a bad one, there’s not constitutional right to emissions, so… > [@](#): > > So if “government can regulate emissions of corporations” doesn’t mean that a fear of “government bans corporate employee bio emissions” is reasonable, then why does “government can regulate corporate speech” mean that a fear that “government bans all corporate speech” would be reasonable? Would you agree to abolishing the First Amendment, even if you think the government probably wouldn’t ban your speech, or would only ban some of it? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/55 "2016-03-29T17:20:46Z")
Anyway, again, back to the point - if you complain about corporations using their speech, backed by their money, to influence public policy, you should be condemning it in Georgia instead of cheering it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/56 "2016-03-29T17:30:14Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Um, wait - your second sentence supports my point fully. > > Unless you’re trying to say that corporations are bad whenever you dont’ like them, but are good when you do like them. And that would be, well, a very silly point. Good thing I did not say that, in reality you are the one ignoring the point, one has to see what the corporations are doing on a case by case basis, otherwise you only fall into generalization fallacies. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But many don’t. > > My beef is with those who don’t. > > That’s not an error. And that is once again indeed called a fallacy, look for “broad brush” ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/57 "2016-03-29T17:38:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Anyway, again, back to the point - if you complain about corporations using their speech, backed by their money, to influence public policy, you should be condemning it in Georgia instead of cheering it. Oh. Okay, thanks for letting us know. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/58 "2016-03-29T17:47:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good thing I did not say that, in reality you are the one ignoring the point, one has to see what the corporations are doing on a case by case basis, otherwise you only fall into generalization fallacies. Then I don’t get your point. Please make it better. > [@](#): > > And that is once again indeed called a fallacy, look for “broad brush” It’s the exact opposite of the broad brush. I specifically said my beef is only with certain opinions. Jeez. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/59 "2016-03-29T17:53:35Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Oh. Okay, thanks for letting us know. And if that’s all you have to say about it, you have no defense for the hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468/60 "2016-03-29T18:21:49Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No, because we both know they aren’t the same thing. You are happy with the government regulating the tailpipe emissions of your car, right? That’s the proper analogy. Moving on… Neither are the government regulating corporate speech and restricting my speech. Moving on… > [@](#): > > Nope. The criticism is about all spending. The reason you aren’t aware is because, having lost that one in court, most have moved on to the only thing left - public disclosure. They’ve stopped talking about spending? I must be hearing voices, then, since I hear it all the time! Of course, it’s not _all spending_, when you dig down – it’s just the big ad buys and SuperPAC stuff and similar. Not every corporate dollar spent on any communications media. > [@](#): > > Are you saying we should be happy with Soviet Russia’s standards of free speech? No – I’m saying that there’s no reason to believe that corporations ceasing to be protected by the 1st amendment would lead to _all corporate speech would be banned_, any more than the lack of 1st amendment in other countries led to _all private speech being banned_. > [@](#): > > Because the bill of rights protects SPEECH. The speaker doesn’t matter. That’s certainly one interpretation. > [@](#): > > If only people have rights, then churches, non-profit groups, media companies, clubs, lobbying groups like the ACLU (which agrees with me by the way) or NAACP or NOW, etc. would also have no rights, including speech rights. Does that make sense? Absolutely, and that sounds like a big potential negative (though other such protections could be provided by law or amendment, comparable to the 1st amendment, but limiting certain types of spending in terms of political advertising). This is a much better argument, in my view, then any you’d previously made. > [@](#): > > None of them are based on the status of the speaker though. I’m not sure this is true, but I’ll move on since I don’t have a cite. > [@](#): > > It is feasible. It’s not likely. But the point is that it would give them the power to do so. It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that they would try to ban all speech about politics by corporations. Again – “ban all speech about politics by corporations” – what does this mean, exactly? I don’t think this is feasible, since I don’t see how a mechanism could be done that doesn’t violate an individual’s rights. The President of the company can say whatever they want, in any form; so can any individual in the company. They just have to change the press releases and letters from “by the company” to “by Mr./Mrs. John/Jane Doe” or the equivalent, and pretend that they are just individuals talking about their own concerns. > [@](#): > > Even if you could make that comparison, as I’ve already shown is a bad one, there’s not constitutional right to emissions, so… This supports my point – there’s no constitutional right to emissions, _and there’s no worry the government will regulate personal bodily emissions_, because that’s ridiculous. Similarly ridiculous, in my opinion, is a concern that the government would ban corporations from sending letters or press releases, which would just be impossible anyway (since the company President can send any letters or press releases he/she wants, since their an individual protected by the 1st amendment). > [@](#): > > Would you agree to abolishing the First Amendment, even if you think the government probably wouldn’t ban your speech, or would only ban some of it? Yes or no? We’re talking about corporations’ rights, not personal rights. Obviously my answer is “no”, but this has nothing to do with this issue, since we’re discussing whether these rights apply to corporations or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-to-the-rescue-in-georgia/750468.md?page=4)