Hello:

Do you think corporations have the right of free speech?

Some would say that a corporation is nothing more than a voice for the owners, and the owners DO have free speech rights. Others would say that the owners/stockholders should not have more free speech rights than non stockholders do.

Hopefully, I have framed the argument WITHOUT weighting it toward MY positions, which I shall discuss later. A Supreme Court case that will clarify the issue is BEING decided as we speak.

Vote for one.

excon

You are correct about the court case. McCain Feingold opened a whole can of unintended worms.

Hello tom and J:

That would mean you agree that corporations could give as much money as they wanted to political candidates and for causes it supports.

If the corporation does have free speech rights, HOW should the corporation decide which owners it speaks for? Or, should the managers speak for the owners?

By the way, you don't think, that if corporations DO have free speech rights, that corporations wouldn't take over? They have MORE money than ANY political party. Nobody or group of citizens could compete with that...

Or would the money corporations spend just be free speech at work?

excon

Only non-incorporated organizations ;no matter how big and powerful ,should have an influence on the political discourse. Right ? Tell you what... ban unions with their huge corporate structures from using their collective influence and contributing to campaigns and we'll have a basis for a compromise. But I bet you'll argue against that even though they have arguably as much if not more influence on the body politic.

Corporations should have free speech rights.

Who the corporations should speak for is to be determined by the shareholders in a shareholder vote. That is, after all, how corporate policy is ultimately decided.

Tom has a point... why should the AFT and the AFL-CIO and the NEA and the SEIU and AFSCME have the right to donate money to political causes and to politicians, but not corporations? What is the difference between a union and a corporation that makes one elligible to donate for political causes and not the other?

I'll take it one step further... unions and many NGOs, many of which claim tax-exempt status, are legally supposed to be banned from political activity under 501 C 3 tax law. Which means that they are not supposed to legally be able to donate to political causes, political parties or political campaigns... or they lose their tax exempt status. Corporations, which do not claim tax exempt status, are not prohibited from making such donations.

And yet, despite how the laws are written, actual practice is the exact opposite of what the law permits. We allow unions to make political donations, but we are trying to stop corporations from doing so.

Can anyone explain that?

Elliot

Here's a question for you . Is the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost a corporation ? Yes .Do they endorse candidates and write op ed s in favor of their choice ? Yes all the time . Is there a cost to writing and publishing these endorments ? Yes . Does this translate into "free " publicity to the candidate that would otherwise have to pay a fortune for space on the pages of these publications ? Yes . Did the NY Slimes in the last election make an editorial decision to not print an oped penned by John McCain ? Yes. Did they have a right to do this ? Yes.
This is true of all the press which of course has a loophole built into the 1st Amendment to any McCain Feingold type restrictions.(McCain in a number of ways was a victim of his own myopic ideas .which in a way was poetic justice )

Have members of Congress openly called for the Federal bailout of the news paper of their preference ? Yes. Could it be argued that there is a certain quid pro quo there ? Yes .

But the 1st Amendment isn't only about the press .It is for everyone.
There is either free speech or there isn't . There is either free speech or censorship . I remind you of the specific language in the 1st Amendment :


I would also add that in one of the cases being considered ; Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation that produced a documentary “Hillary: The Movie'' .But they were not permitted to release it because of the McCain /Feingold restrictions . I just have to wonder if the same standards would've been applied if Michael Moore had released one of his screeds during the campaign season . So perhaps nonprofits can use their influence if they are from a certain spectrum.