Reply With Quote
Yes. Though McCain-Feingold offered an exemption, provided donations were from individuals only.
Who said that?If you don't confer free speech rights on a legal en y, then wars will follow.
Yes. Though McCain-Feingold offered an exemption, provided donations were from individuals only.
Oh, Citizens United, right.
Just extrapolating. Bastiat originally applied it to trade.
I couldn't disagree more with what Citizen's United says, but i'll defend to the death their right to say it. It's not their fault the SC went so far past the relief they asked for, to protect unions and for profit corporations too.
CU's problem was that they accepted donations from non-individuals.
Apparently true.
Corporate sponsorship. Gotcha.
What speech is exactly chilled if corporate sponsorship is excluded?
That's what I don't get, honestly. Money always gets by the regs.
Not hard to be a cynic in these United States, but what is truly lost?
The one thing that seems clear is the idea that individuals, instead of groups speaking through individuals, should not be a significant source of political expression.
Let the people have whatever petty rules as they may think diminish corruption or the appearance of corruption in politics. The money will always find a way past them.
True, I will grant you that anything such as an outright ban on corporate donations of any type would never come close to passing, at least at the federal level.
I think Citizen's United confirms it is a very significant source. A noble myth of corporate good-citizenship is promulgated.
Without the benevolent and truly civic-minded assistance of corporations, we should all be lost for good information about politics and politicians.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-27-2010 at 03:11 AM. Reason: blued for ironic emphasis
Yes.
Also, think about how political discourse these days is centered around certain "stakeholder" groups.
The individual is lost in our politics, other than as the yokel who needs to be conned by a politician (backed by these stakeholder groups) to be elected into office to give the groups what they want.
Or, we find our meaning in political life by the groups to which we belong. To think that our political life should have regard for the individual as an individual, is heresy.
Who knows what the (little) people might do if they came to regard themselves as individuals, or gave a damn about individual liberty.
Oh well, legal solemnities touching corporate advertising in the last 30 days before an election are now passe'.
Not to mention giving a damn about the usurpation and bas ization of their Cons ution.
Of course, perhaps I give them too much credit. Conservatives, at least conservatives of an older vintage, were quite skeptical of the peoples' ability. Today's conservatives champion the people and dismiss "the elite." Though apparently "the people" has come to include General Electric and Boeing.
Olly olly oxen free.
Some worry about a "socialist" takeover of the federal government which is owned by the Fortune 500.
it.
All resistance to corporate boards is normatively socialist in tone and effect.
Why do you hate entrepreneurs, MarcusBryant?
Did I miss that in this latest cluster of a thread or are you engaging in subtle (for WaterCloset) mockery?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions