2 ms·

Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?

• yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yeah, sure. For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though. [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running corporations. No one's forcing them to run a corporation, and they can all go do whatever they like with full protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if they use their own personal resources and don't hide behind corporate liability shields.
  • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?
    • yamtaddle 4y ago
      > Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates? Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.
      • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        What about a law prohibiting unions from doing so?
        • yamtaddle 4y ago
          I wouldn't want them to—again, that's separate—but yeah, maybe, since they're also effectively chartered by the government (as they pretty much can't exist in any useful way absent special government support of some kind or another—but then, same goes for corporations). I mean, they do in fact already dictate a lot about how both unions and corporations can operate, so yeah, prohibiting endorsement of candidates using union resources doesn't seem entirely crazy to me. Though, again, I'd rather they didn't.