Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129636)	1/29/2010 3:00:39 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541986

Message 26284823

To: TimF who wrote (129636)	1/29/2010 8:08:23 PM
From: Jeff Hayden	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541986

Any restriction of "corporate rights" is a restriction of their rights. Now you've gone off the deep end. There is nothing in the constitution preventing each and every employee or stockholder from speaking, voting, and partaking in political activity. These people are allowed to advocate for policies that would help the company for which they work, if they so desire. There is also no recognition of the corporation, itself as a speaking entity, voter or politician.

To: TimF who wrote (129636)	1/30/2010 9:47:39 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541986

It's a lost cause, people arrive at the conclusion they wish to arrive at then presume that because it is a "good" result the Constitution must support it. The real problem is there is no rational basis on which to distinguish various associations (don't get stuck on the "corporation" stuff, a corporation is one among many types of associations) when it comes to free speech, as Congress realized, so if you forbid GE from speaking on political matters you have to forbid the Association For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals from speaking on political matters. Why shouldn't the ASPCA be able to comment on political matters? Thus the statute is, of necessity, way, way over broad and infringes on protected speech. The dissent talks about business corporations ... anyone who thinks there is much of a distinction between a large 501(c)(3) corporation and CSCO just hasn't done much work with not for profits. In any case the Congress should not be given the right to pick and choose who enjoys free speech. This case makes me glad the SCOTUS is not beholden to the general public because the approach of the general public 1. Arrive at the "fair" result 2. Look for a basis to support the "fair" result 3. Ignore anyone who argues the "fair" result is not supported by the Constitution just doesn't work in the long term, we would wind up losing every single one of our freedoms, because freedom does not always assure a fair result ... in fact it assures a more or less random group of results.