> Your statement makes no sense What purpose does this statement have in a civil discussion? > Individuals have the right of association Yes, they do. I am

> Your statement makes no sense What purpose does this statement have in a civil discussion? > Individuals have the right of association Yes, they do. I am specifically talking about corporations' ability to spend money on a political campaign. By ignoring this I have to believe you are not interested in engaging in thoughtful debate. > Unions, for example wield much capital with a small number of people involved, are you suggesting that they, too should be limited? Major political parties are associations of people with significant financial resources once combined with few people making the real decisions. Should they be limited? Should non-profit organizations be able to take part in speech under the First Amendment? No. There are already limits imposed upon individual spending towards an election. It is not a stretch to say there should be limits on corporate spending. Many countries have different kinds of limits on political campaign spending while still allowing people to associate freely. > I'm point out the contradiction, which is pertinent to the thread, and suggesting you choose You're free to do so. I feel it's off topic. > Or do you really just want what you want and the definitions are fluid depending on how convenient they are to your viewpoint? I have already answered your question. If my answer is not to your satisfaction, then that is your problem. I'm not going to confine my answers to a) I agree with sbuttgereit or b) I want what I want. That's absurd. > As for the original intention of our democratic republic... I'd be interest to know where you get your sense of original intention I get it from being raised in the American educational system. Given the number of grammatical mistakes in your last comment, I wonder where you got yours.