3 ms·
My issue with this situation is that these corporations generally have orders-of-magnitude louder megaphones through which to exercise these rights. It really s
by jonah 12y ago
My issue with this situation is that these corporations generally have orders-of-magnitude louder megaphones through which to exercise these rights. It really skews the one-person-one-vote ideal this democracy is built on. (Yes, individuals exercising an out-sized influence through money and access is a part of the same issue.) This is why things like Citizen's United and Super-PACs are so horribly distorting the functional workings of our country.
- fennecfoxen 12y agoWe've always had and will always have private citizens who have orders-of-magnitude-louder megaphones: big-money bogeymen like Rupert Murdoch could be plenty effective at buying megaphones. Or think of any celebrity Twitter account, from Taylor Swift to Obama himself. And we'd disempower a variety of political activity (ostensibly) backed by the common man if private-sector labor unions couldn't spend money on politics and rich CEOs could.
- crazy1van 12y agoCorporations are just individuals who pool their resources for a common endeavor. Usually this is for profit but sometimes it is a charity. Either way, why should individuals lose rights when they operate as a group? Preventing people from pooling resources shifts the balance of power towards rich individuals who don't need extra outside resources to further their political goals.