EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to NormanS
Re: Lobbying Needs to Be Outlawed.... In some cases CEOs can be held responsible for corporate activities.
The Supreme Court has ruled that giving money to candidates is a form of speech that is protected under the Constitution. Are you saying that corporations should be denied the rights of free speech? That sets a dangerous precedent for censorship... "I'm sorry, this newspaper is owned by the New York Times Company, so it's not covered by the right of free press, we're shutting it down" Am I now taking the argument to ridiculous levels? Of course... |
|
| Ah, but did the company WRITE that paper? No, it didn't. People did. Legal citizens whose rights are 'guaranteed'. Therefore, the newspaper IS a form of speech, as it was the people themselves who wrote it.
However, a corporation giving bribes to their favorite candidate is NOT an act of people, it is the act of an entity which cannot vote, and yet is given the same rights as any legal citizen (barring said ability to vote, of course). Why should they be able to vote with money? |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to EPS
said by EPS:The Supreme Court has ruled that giving money to candidates is a form of speech that is protected under the Constitution. Are you saying that corporations should be denied the rights of free speech? <sarcasm>Then we should give the right to vote to corporations, don't you think?</sarcasm>
Seriously, a corporation is not a person, regardless of fictional attributes of personhood. Putting a corporation on the same level as I am on is outrageous.
Might as well scrap the Constitution, and give over the government to the corporate interests.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to lordofwhee
A corporation is a group of people pooling their resources for the common interests, nothing more. Of course a corporation wouldn't have the right to vote, because each member of the group of people whose resources are being pooled already has the right to vote as an individual, and you could get extra votes just by starting up shell companies, so obviously a bad idea there.
If you say that the "corporation" can not donate money to favored candidates, then instead people involved with the corporation will donate money to the same candidates for the same interests. Maybe the board will up their compensation a bit to make up for it. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by EPS:If you say that the "corporation" can not donate money to favored candidates, then instead people involved with the corporation will donate money to the same candidates for the same interests. Only up to 5% of their Adjusted Gross Incomes.
Maybe the board will up their compensation a bit to make up for it.
Maybe; but I suspect that it would take more than "a bit" to matter. And wouldn't the strings attached to the added compensation be a wonderful sound bite for the news folks!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
