4 ms·
"Corporations are people" has nothing to do with campaign spending limits being unconstitutional. Congress can and does legally limit donations from anyone (peo
by bcoates 13y ago
"Corporations are people" has nothing to do with campaign spending limits being unconstitutional. Congress can and does legally limit donations from anyone (people, corporations, whatever) to politicians. It can't ban any communication mentioning a candidate for federal office without permission, which is what the McCain–Feingold Act attempted to do.
The Constitution says "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and doesn't say it's a particular right of individuals, just a blanket ban on legislation on the topic. Protecting the freedom of the press as an exclusively individual right doesn't even make sense.
- Shivetya 13y agoTo expand on this point, the laws they are attempting to pass and have passed have all been about protecting incumbents. The best way to view many laws out of Washington is to read them as doing the opposite of what their stated purpose is.
- triplesec 13y agoI believe you entirely miss the point of that decision. IT was nothing to do with the freedom of the press: it's still free whether corporations are "people" or not in law. What changed was the ability of non-press organisations to use money as a proxy for speech to buy up "freedom of speech" through expensive media campaigns. This is the problem of gross inequality that this decision made.