Yes because citizens should’t be allowed to use their money as they see fit. :rolleyes:
But what about issues? What if I want to contribute to AIPAC or NARAL or the AFL-CIO?
It should be noted too the Court decision enables not just corporations but also labour unions.
If you expand the definition to include other monied interests (unions and certain individuals) then absolutely yes. It’s a natural outgrowth of the “money=speech” decisions.
Yes, that’s exactly what personhood is. A person is an independent entity that can enter into contract, can sue, and be sued. If people are making arguments out of ignorance, then the onus on them is to correct their ignorance.
Oh? Do you think that open bribery should be allowed? If yes then you are in favor of corruption; if no, then you already agree that citizens shouldn’t be allowed to spend money as they want and we are just arguing over what restrictions to have.
Which barely exist, so it doesn’t matter.
Obviously there are restrictions on things like that, I was using some rhetoric and hyperbole here.
From what we have seen, the unions in the public sector at least have a lot of fight and strength in them,
Was that a goalpost I saw moving? There’s nothing obvious about it; if you are defending the legality of such democracy-corrupting spending with “citizens should be allowed to use their money as they see fit”, then the same argument supports open bribery.
Alright, I meant citizens should be allowed to spend money freely outside of extreme and obvious cases (such as bribery).
OK, people.
Should it be legal for groups to advocate for issues? Like, if the NRA is against gun control, should they be able to try to convince more people to be against gun control? Should they be able to advocate that people should vote for candidates that support their agenda, and vote against candidates that are against their agenda?
Would anyone here seriously say, “no, groups should not be allowed to advocate for issues, or urge people to vote for candidates”, then what the fuck was the first amendment supposed to be for? "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. "
If people should not be allowed to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, I’d say that’s the end of democracy.
Obvious? Obvious to whom? Would you take my word for it?
Wow!!! I guess that’s what the Super PAC’s do during elections huh and why they need $55 Million to silence opponents right? I wonder why the Congress came to debate McCain-Feingold and had Dubya sign it into law… it couldn’t be that they were concerned about all of that free-speech first amendment thing huh?
Man, I don’t know what article you’re reading, but “defeating one’s opponents in a contested election” does not qualify as “silencing opponents’ rights.”
I should also state outright that I do not support Super PACs, but I do not see them as being responsible for imagined ills like ending democracy, promoting alien invasion, or being the real cause of cancer.
You don’t support Super PACs? Me too… I guess you must have a reason for not supporting somebody’s First Amendment rights huh? Mind sharing?
Here you keep using the word “groups”, but is a corporation a group? I keep seeing corp.s referred to as a person, not as a group of people.
Perhaps in your next post you can better inform us of how Super PACs are responsible for global warming, the increase in autism, and milk that seems to go bad right just a couple days after I bring it home from the store.
http://www.progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm It is well on its way to becoming a Plutocracy.
Yes, groups should be able to advocate for issues. And they should be allowed to try to get more people to join their group and fight for their cause. However, they should not be allowed to donate money directly to PACs, or campaigns. If the NRA thinks that its cause is supported best by candidate A, it should communicate to its members that they should vote and contribute to candidate A, but the NRA as a group should not be allowed to campaign for candidate A. Similarly, a union should not be allowed to contribute directly to a candidate, but it can tell its members that they should contribute to a certain candidate. In other words, make the individuals in any particular group take the initiative in actually donating their money to a candidate.
Never was and never will be. What we got today is 50 confederate states stealing investors from each other, crippling their infrastructures and needlessly confining most of our population for the crime of not being their jailors.
Not even Texas can take on China. Let’s get together.
Aloha