4 ms·

There's no need for an organization to be immune from censure or regulation when its constituents are all themselves immune. Let's take a concrete example, and

There's no need for an organization to be immune from censure or regulation when its constituents are all themselves immune. Let's take a concrete example, and suppose that the government outlaws corporations from criticizing government policy. If corporations don't have free speech rights, then it would be perfectly constitutional for them to do so. Do you think that this is okay, since all the individual shareholders still have the right to complain? Even if every individual shareholder gets up at a meeting and says "This new government policy is stupid", the company can be banned from passing a resolution that says "This new government policy is stupid"? I can see how _some_ individual rights do not extend to corporations, but free speech is not among them. The right of groups of people to assemble and make joint declarations is a fundamental part of the right of free speech.

roc 17y ago
Do you think that this is okay, since all the individual shareholders still have the right to complain? Absolutely. Why should the corporation need a right to speech to furtehr its interests over and above what a partnership, club, community group, or fraternity have? As I understand it those organizations make joint political declarations all the time, without the benefit of being able to contribute to their chosen political campaigns above and beyond what their members can. Why do corporations need an extra leg up in defending their political interests?
- hughprime 17y ago
  That's a good question. OK, I certainly don't think that corporations should have any additional rights beyond those of partnerships, clubs etc. If that's the law, then it needs to be changed. But now I'm confused as to what the actual law is. Let me put this all together... corporations have the right to free speech, and somehow this extends to the right to make political donations. On the other hand, individuals have the right to free speech, yet individuals are severely restricted in the amount and kind of political donations they can make thanks to McCain-Feingold. If the right to make political donations is considered part of the right to free speech then how can McCain-Feingold be constitutional at all?
  - btilly 17y ago
    The restriction is on the right of the political campaign to accept donations, not on the individual to speak. I believe that if an individual wishes to invest their own money to get their own version of the message out, they are free to do so. The case in front of the Supreme Court is one where a company produced a special that would have been legal if they only worked with private money, but wasn't because they had some corporate money.

roc 17y ago

Do you think that this is okay, since all the individual shareholders still have the right to complain? Absolutely. Why should the corporation need a right to speech to furtehr its interests over and above what a partnership, club, community group, or fraternity have? As I understand it those organizations make joint political declarations all the time, without the benefit of being able to contribute to their chosen political campaigns above and beyond what their members can. Why do corporations need an extra leg up in defending their political interests?

hughprime 17y ago
That's a good question. OK, I certainly don't think that corporations should have any additional rights beyond those of partnerships, clubs etc. If that's the law, then it needs to be changed. But now I'm confused as to what the actual law is. Let me put this all together... corporations have the right to free speech, and somehow this extends to the right to make political donations. On the other hand, individuals have the right to free speech, yet individuals are severely restricted in the amount and kind of political donations they can make thanks to McCain-Feingold. If the right to make political donations is considered part of the right to free speech then how can McCain-Feingold be constitutional at all?
- btilly 17y ago
  The restriction is on the right of the political campaign to accept donations, not on the individual to speak. I believe that if an individual wishes to invest their own money to get their own version of the message out, they are free to do so. The case in front of the Supreme Court is one where a company produced a special that would have been legal if they only worked with private money, but wasn't because they had some corporate money.