reply to post by tooo many pills
But that was the Supreme Court's arguement for the ruling on this case. The corporatons insisted that their rights were being suppressed because they
had to make a PAC to give money to candidates. Was there a limit on the amount of money that they could give in these PACs? Probably not.
Not actually. I really think you'd benefit from reading the actual ruling,
at least the first 8 or 10 pages.
The next 175 pages or so tend to drag on.
This non-profit corporation had produced a movie, and a cable company offered to run the movie as pay-per-view. It was decided by a district court
that this was illegal electioneering and did not let them play the movie.
The corporation disagreed, because it wasn't a political advertisement they wanted to run, but a movie.
Because the movie mentioned Hillary Clinton by name, this was agaist the rules.
That is what brought this case before the SCOTUS.
From page 1 and 2 of the decision.
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United,
a nonprofit corporation,
released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination.
Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primaryelections, Citizens United
produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it
sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary;and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure,
and reporting requirements,BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillaryand the ads.
from your post.
People's rights are being suppressed because they have a LIMIT on how much they can spend on the candidate of their choice.
If corporations want the same rights as human beings then they are subject to the limits all of us are subject to. (I listed them in my first post)
I do see your point, in that there ought to be limits on corporate spending.
I have said several times that I in no way condone the amount of sway corporations and lobbyists have over our government.
This ruling has not changed any of that, for better or worse.
Also from your post:
Exactly corporations have limited liability, which means the people that run the corporation aren't liable for the debt or evil a corporation
produces. So the people that run a corporation can let their evil or greed show through the corporation. They will not face the consequences for doing
what is good for their business but bad for the rest of us.
For what it's worth, several years back, I had the opportunity to take over operations for a restaurant here in town.
Long story short, I and my wife ended up forming a corporation.
We did the paperwork and filed with the state.
The fee was $5.00.
I paid an extra $25.00 for "expediated processing".
I did not have to pay that fee.
So there you go, there is my bias.
I am a corporation.
I am also unemployed and a stay-at-home dad.
Not all corporations are big evil parasites.