4 ms·
This makes me very happy! A lot corporate nastiness has remained unregulated due to arguments based on the tenet (ridiculous, in my view) that corporations sho
by wsprague 17y ago
This makes me very happy! A lot corporate nastiness has remained unregulated due to arguments based on the tenet (ridiculous, in my view) that corporations should be afforded the same rights as human beings.
- chasingsparks 17y agoI don't follow law very much. What nastiness has been perpetuated by corporations as the result of corporate personhood?
- mynameishere 17y agoI second this question. As soon as corporations stop having 1st amendment protections, Fox News is going to have trouble putting Glenn Beck (or the bogeyman du jour) on the air. I can't conceive of any other (real) reason for this...
- vannevar 17y agoNo, because Glenn Beck will still have the right to be on the air. There are a couple of 'real' reasons for denying corporations free speech: the government may want to more tightly regulate truthfulness in corporate speech, since the immunity we give corporate officers prevents us from suing a spokesperson if they lie outright about their product. Another instance where it's important is the subjet of the case at hand: election law. Corporations want to double dip, allowing their officers to give to the legal individual limit and then give again anonymously under the corporate banner. And of course, the immunity doctrine helps shield the officers in the event of campaign finance chicanery.