"Freedom of speech applies to people, corporations have corporate personhood; therefore, freedom of speech applies to corporations.
Speech can be purchased, as with advertisements, thus, restricting expenditure on political expression is a violation of freedom of speech.
Therefore, corporations can spend as much money as they want on campaigning for political candidates."
It was a disastrous (and narrow 5-4) Supreme Court decision, and rightly condemned by many at the time, including many liberal politicians - and celebrated by conservative politicians.
one of the big problems in the US is that they privatize the gain and socialize the loss. if a corporation does something risky and it pays off then the execs make bank. if it results in a disaster with global and environmental consequences, then the execs aren’t held accountable
Friend of mine, already a resident here in Australia, saw that decision and immediately applied for Australian citizenship, because the US could not be anything except fucked after that.
Few years ago, he gave up his US citizenship when he saw that the Dems weren’t going to punish the GOP for their crimes. Because fascism was inevitable after that.
There was a really good video of a news anchor at the time breaking down precisely why it was such a bad idea, and everything he predicted in that video has come true in the years since.
I can’t find it, I can’t remember his name or what station it was. But I saw it on a thread a few months ago and it was really good.
I know this comment is useless without the link, but if anyone knows what I’m talking about feel free to post it
Yeah…a corporation in a collection of people whom have different ideologies. A corporation cannot be given “free speech” because it is comprised of many individuals - let alone treated as a single identity. I believe the constitution says “we the people” not “we the corporations”. This was a bone headed argument and incredibly damaging decision- which we’re now seeing the results from.
It’s also worth noting that the decision explicitly addressed the question of corruption, and concluded that unlimited spending on campaigns could not create corruption, or even “the appearance of corruption.”
There was precedent that even if actual corruption was not happening, just things seeming corrupt could erode faith in our institutions and in democracy. So they had to address this and claim that unlimited campaign contributions in exchange for favorable treatment by the new administration wouldn’t even appear corrupt. They did that by redefining corruption to mean only an explicit quid pro quo, where what each side would do was spelled out, and not just a general “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” arrangement, which under this new definition would be totally fine. So the government could openly cater to the needs of moneyed special interests instead of those of the people, and that definitely wouldn’t make the public feel that government no longer represented their interests.
"Freedom of speech applies to people, corporations have corporate personhood; therefore, freedom of speech applies to corporations.
Speech can be purchased, as with advertisements, thus, restricting expenditure on political expression is a violation of freedom of speech.
Therefore, corporations can spend as much money as they want on campaigning for political candidates."
It was a disastrous (and narrow 5-4) Supreme Court decision, and rightly condemned by many at the time, including many liberal politicians - and celebrated by conservative politicians.
Can corporations go to jail or be executed?
If only conservative Supreme Court Justices were that consistent.
Chapter 11 and 7 bankruptcies. That’s as the US has to either and I can’t remember the last publicly traded company to chapter 7
They can be traded as slaves, so I guess 13th Amendment is null and void.
omg. what a disaster.
one of the big problems in the US is that they privatize the gain and socialize the loss. if a corporation does something risky and it pays off then the execs make bank. if it results in a disaster with global and environmental consequences, then the execs aren’t held accountable
Friend of mine, already a resident here in Australia, saw that decision and immediately applied for Australian citizenship, because the US could not be anything except fucked after that.
Few years ago, he gave up his US citizenship when he saw that the Dems weren’t going to punish the GOP for their crimes. Because fascism was inevitable after that.
There was a really good video of a news anchor at the time breaking down precisely why it was such a bad idea, and everything he predicted in that video has come true in the years since.
I can’t find it, I can’t remember his name or what station it was. But I saw it on a thread a few months ago and it was really good.
I know this comment is useless without the link, but if anyone knows what I’m talking about feel free to post it
Yeah…a corporation in a collection of people whom have different ideologies. A corporation cannot be given “free speech” because it is comprised of many individuals - let alone treated as a single identity. I believe the constitution says “we the people” not “we the corporations”. This was a bone headed argument and incredibly damaging decision- which we’re now seeing the results from.
It’s also worth noting that the decision explicitly addressed the question of corruption, and concluded that unlimited spending on campaigns could not create corruption, or even “the appearance of corruption.”
There was precedent that even if actual corruption was not happening, just things seeming corrupt could erode faith in our institutions and in democracy. So they had to address this and claim that unlimited campaign contributions in exchange for favorable treatment by the new administration wouldn’t even appear corrupt. They did that by redefining corruption to mean only an explicit quid pro quo, where what each side would do was spelled out, and not just a general “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” arrangement, which under this new definition would be totally fine. So the government could openly cater to the needs of moneyed special interests instead of those of the people, and that definitely wouldn’t make the public feel that government no longer represented their interests.
Talk about “egregiously wrong from the start.”