My characterization is far afield of how the amendment is often promoted in the left leaning press, so I forgive your mistake.
It certainly does strip first amendment protection from human beings. Collective social structures are how people communicate, as was true when the first amendment was written. The fact that you might support the limiting of the political speech of groups that use a certain subset of these collective social structures does not change the fact that this limitation is a limitation on the ability of humans to speak politically. Neither does the fact that you or others may consider this subset of political speech to be dangerous. It is not a new idea, that there might be certain political speech that is dangerous. It is a certainty that this will be the case, in fact, but we choose to protect it anyway.
If MLK’s enemies could have stopped the SCLC from spending money he would have been shut down.
Every last person or group of people is a potential “political actor”. So what? The government should not be making laws to limit political speech, that’s what. Thankfully we have the the flaming Teabagger right-wingnuts of the American Civil Liberties Union to protect us from this neo-lefty crap.
“Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment.” -ACLU
I don’t feel particularly beholden to what the ACLU argues. Do you?
Furthermore, a constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations aren’t allowed to try to buy elections would obviously make such a common-sense regulation constitutional. The reconciliation with the First Amendment would not be an issue.
Bullshit. Bob is a radical. He can shout on the street corner to his heart’s content, or publish a zine talking about how terrible gummint is, or whatever. Bob joins a corporation. I do not advocate taking a single shred of his personal freedom away.
What I do advocate is that the benefits accorded to the “corporate” structure don’t extend to being able to use that structure to influence elections. If you want to influence elections, you may continue to do so outside of the corporate structure as much as you want. You won’t be penalized for doing so, nor will your corporation.
It’s really dumb to suggest that, because you can’t use a legal fiction to exercise your rights, you can’t exercise those rights.
I am not beholden to them, nor am I aware of a time when they advocated for something I was opposed to. They are a group that represents my viewpoint, that I and other other like minded people use to collectively voice our political opinions.
Sure. We could make slavery constitutional again too. And “clarifying that corporations aren’t allowed to try to buy elections” is not what the amendment does. It limits the first amendment protection of people acting collectively when they do so using particular organisational structures.
The most important free expression in a democracy is the vote. Which side is trying to limit that expression? Which side mandates massive, carelessly compiled voter roll purges that typically disenfranchise many, many legally eligible and registered voters? Which side restricts early and Sunday voting, which have nothing to do with voter id?
Yes, that’s exactly what it does. [The first sentence, not the second. -ed] And your equivalency of money and speech is belied by the fact that nobody ever complains about the “pernicious influence of speech in elections.”
Holy crap! The New York Times Op-Ed page is attempting to send millions of dollars to the campaign coffers of politicians? When did this happen?!?
Let’s talk about this idea of yours that you get to decide what Bob’s “personal freedom” is, and on this basis limit the way he and others collectively express themselves, limiting them to individually shouting on the street corner.
Why should the restriction apply only to for-profit corporations? What about all of the benefits afforded by other structures, should those benefits extend to being able to use the structure to influence elections?
But universities pride themselves on being places where you can speak your mind and people will respectfully listen or choose not to listen. This works just fine as long as you’re venting leftist ideas. As soon as your speech violates any cherished, leftist dogma, you are shouted down, hit with cream pies, or otherwise prevented from speaking your mind. How is this consistent with free speech?
Yes I have. I reject the idea that the government should get to decide who constitutes “The Press”, and who is thus excluded from the restrictions to political speech. In fact this notion completely undermines the very idea of the first amendment.
As well as being wrong on this basis it is also impractical.