Comments (13) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   motivemagus said, 2 months ago

   This is way scary. Bad enough that the Supremes made “one dollar/one vote” the new law of the land, but this is really scary.

2. 

   d_legendary1 said, 2 months ago

   You ain’t seen nothing yet! Pretty soon at the end of their campaign slogans there will be an ad that will say “This candidate is brought to you in part by these fine products and services”.

   Democracy will truly die after this case.

3. 

   believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

   Wow, Powell! I’m impressed. Kudos to you.

   legend if only there was that much transparency they could be doing it now

4. 

   GNWachs said, 2 months ago

   So:

   if you are a corporate chairman named Sulzberger you can legally spend millions of corporate dollars endorsing your candidate and dissing the opposition.

   If you are the head of a union you can spend millions of union dollars hiring door to door proponents for your favorite candidate

   if you are named Bloomberg, Corzine, Kerry et al you can spend millions of dollars promoting yourself

   but if you are like 90% of US corporations have less than 100 employees allowing you to try and promote your candidate is going to cause the world to come to an end. You cannot even WRITE a book about your candidate.

   If that is your logic I certainly hope the Supremes bring some common sense to this dilemma.

5. 

   cjkinsey said, 2 months ago

   GN, what are you talking about? Sulzberger, whoever he/she is could or could not spend unlimited corporate money depending on this ruling. Based on this ruling your 90% of corps w/ <100 emp would have the same ability. There is no distinction between large and small corps based on # of employees in this discussion?

6. 

   motivemagus said, 2 months ago

   GNW: Organizations are not people. Should they be treated as if they were individual citizens for First Amendment purposes? By their very nature they are far larger and more influential than a given individual. Should we protect the ability of a large group to overwhelm the voice of the individual? It could become an extension of the previous decision I dislike, which enables the rich (or the organized) to have a larger voice than the poor. It’s a tricky question for either party. And I don’t have a good answer, either. I’m a First Amendment absolutist in general, but this question perplexes me.

7. 

   GNWachs said, 2 months ago

   MM

   By Supreme Court verdict Corporations = people. So your first sentence, although a worthy opinion, is factually incorrect.

   Far larger? If I as a tiny tiny 5 employee medical corporation wish to promote a candidate, that is illegal. There are millions of Americans with far more economic means than my baby corporation.

   I too am a 1st A absolutist and my ability to join with 5 other medical practices to buy a bigger ad is 1st A protected.

   cjkinsey Sulzberger owns the NYT and by law, by constitution can say and write and endorse and denounce anyone he wants even at the cost of millions of dollars.

8. 

   churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

   ^ I’m afraid you may have to spell out what the acronym NYT means for him.

9. 

   believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

   motive, I’m also a firm 1st amendment believer. The reason why I’m not perplexed by this issue is that each individual who is part of a corporation (employers, managers, CEOs, board of directors, shareholders) has an individual right to free speech. If corporations are considered “people,” then every one of those individuals is in effect, given greater free speech rights than those not attached to a corporation.

   I think of it as those attached to corporations be given two votes when it comes to donations considered free speech. Does that make sense? (I trust you and your ‘motive,’ if that’s not logical, tell me why.)

   Nothing restricts the free speech right of the individuals attached to a corporation.

10. 

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    church, unnecessary cheap shot. Of course I know The New York Times.
    GNW: I am aware of what the Supreme Court decision says - I’m speaking more about reality than law! Or perhaps Edward Coke’s view: “They [corporations] cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicate, for they have no souls.” (“The Case of Sutton’s Hospital”)
    My point is more like bcs’s, in that it appears that an organization of any size magnifies the impact of one person’s opinion - and not necessarily all the members of the organization, as would be true in your “five employee medical corporation” example. In practice a major company can promote laws through lobbying that would be actively detrimental to many of the individuals in the company. And that’s on both sides of the political spectrum. Ben & Jerry’s has been obnoxious about insisting their employees share their political enthusiasms, too.
    Under the First Amendment, we have freedom of speech and the press (among others). Perhaps it is like the Second Amendment – back then newspapers were of much smaller distribution, and guns were a lot slower and less instruments of mass destruction. Should people be able to magnify their voices as, say, a Rupert Murdoch does? Or indeed even as Hearst did? When the press acts as a counterweight to government, I think it’s a good thing. But lately the owners of the media are influencing the government for their benefit rather than challenging it on behalf of the people.

11. 

    ahab said, 2 months ago

    Orwell, here we come. I’m sure the 9 realize what the 5 are going to do to the citizens of this country. Pray SCOTUS does not rule on this case as expected.

12. 

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    MOTIVE: My apologies! No cheap shot intended! My comment was a reply to GNW, who was clearly explaining who Salzberger is to a chap/chapess named CJKINSEY.

    You can be sure that any cheap shots I take at you will be clearly labelled! I hate confusion!

13. 

    cjkinsey said, 2 months ago

    church, what was the intent of your post then? What did you add?