4 ms·
> better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights. That's the crux of the problem though.
by zbyte64 11y ago
> better alternative to fixing the problem than limiting people (who form corporations) of their first amendment rights.
That's the crux of the problem though. People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Those that own a corporation have no legal limit on the amount of cash they can lend to a political cause while those who do not have their allowed contribution amount capped.
- 13thLetter 11y ago> People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Corporations such as -- to pick an example completely at random -- the New York Times? One of the many, many problems with advocating limiting corporate speech is that virtually everything larger than complaining on a blog or tacking a sign to an electrical pole is done by a corporate organization. If the New York Times can say what it pleases using its vast financial resources and nationwide distribution networks, it's very hard to argue coherently that, say, General Electric can't.