Comments on: Corporate Free Speech http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/ Political Fan Site Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:27:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: AntiCitizenX http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1730 AntiCitizenX Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:05:45 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1730 @Exmech2 I think you summed it up well. The final judgement call is simply "which takes precedence, free speech or fair elections?" I am inclined to say that free speech leads to better elections. But this is a judgement call on my part. You are inclined to say the opposite. I can respect you entirely for that position as well, and you have demonstrated some merits for it. I just hope I at least showed that the issue is not quite so cut-and-dry as "corporations are evil." :) @Exmech2

I reckon you summed it up well. The final judgement call is simply “which takes precedence, free speech or honest elections?”

I am sloping to say that free speech leads to better elections. But this is a judgement call on my part. You are sloping to say the opposite. I can respect you entirely for that position as well, and you have demonstrated some merits for it.

I just hope I at least showed that the issue is not quite so cut-and-dry as “corporations are evil.” :)

]]> By: AntiCitizenX http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1729 AntiCitizenX Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:17:03 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1729 @Exmech2 So my next question for you is, what about non-profit corporations? Do you think the NRA has an "unfair advantage?" All they do is pool money from donations, same as the Sierra club. Would you at least concede that political non-profit corporations probably should not subject to these constraints? @Exmech2

So my next question for you is, what about non-profit corporations? Do you reckon the NRA has an “unfair advantage?” All they do is pool money from donations, same as the Sierra club. Would you at least concede that political non-profit corporations probably should not theme to these constraints?

]]> By: AntiCitizenX http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1728 AntiCitizenX Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:35:22 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1728 @stanjz [They? are a group of very powerful men who often do something that is very detrimental to society and great for profits.] If I may respond, this is a very narrow understanding of what corporations do and why. It is the rough equivalent to saying "all black people ever do is eat watermelons and fried chicken." For every Fox news, there are a hundred Googles. @stanjz

[They? are a group of very powerful men who often do something that is very detrimental to society and fantastic for profits.]

If I may respond, this is a very narrow understanding of what corporations do and why. It is the rough equivalent to saying “all black people ever do is eat watermelons and fried chicken.” For every Fox news, there are a hundred Googles.

]]> By: Exmech2 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1727 Exmech2 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:46:01 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1727 I feel that free and fair elections are a necessary safeguard of free speech. There are valid and very strong arguments for both of us, and this is probably why the Court was so divided. I feel that free and honest elections are a necessary safeguard of free speech. There are valid and very strong arguments for both of us, and this is probably why the Court was so divided.

]]> By: Exmech2 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1726 Exmech2 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:02:02 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1726 Actually, I do feel that even NPO's should be constrained regarding campaigns. Corporations, both profit and NPO have certain advantages with regard to lobbying that the average citizen does not. This more than offsets any disparity in specific free speech rights. The NRA does not support all of my views, neither does the Sierra club, though I am in agreemnt of both platforms. I think the center got screwed in this deal. Really, I do feel that even NPO’s should be constrained regarding campaigns. Corporations, both profit and NPO have certain advantages with regard to lobbying that the average citizen does not. This more than offsets any disparity in specific free speech rights. The NRA does not support all of my views, neither does the Sierra club, though I am in agreemnt of both platforms. I reckon the center got screwed in this deal.

]]> By: AntiCitizenX http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1725 AntiCitizenX Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:04:08 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1725 [Actually, I do feel that even NPO's should be constrained] I have to disagree entirely. I feel that orgs like the NRA exist solely for the purpose of giving a loud voice to collective groups of little people. The more people who support the org, the louder the voice gets. Limiting the speech of the NRA is therefore nothing less than limiting the speech of the people who collectively support them. ps, I'm a paid member of the NRA which is why I like using them as an example :) [Really, I do feel that even NPO's should be constrained]

I have to disagree entirely. I feel that orgs like the NRA exist solely for the function of giving a loud voice to collective groups of small people. The more people who support the org, the louder the voice gets. Limiting the speech of the NRA is consequently nothing less than limiting the speech of the people who collectively support them.

ps, I’m a paid limb of the NRA which is why I like using them as an example :)

]]> By: stanjz http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1724 stanjz Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:56:29 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1724 A defender of undo corporate influence wrote"Charles Manson is a total dickhead. But he should, as a citizen of the United States, enjoy? the right of free speech...the question is not how nasty corporations are" first Charles Manson is a prisoner and her doesn't have the full rights of citizenship anymore. Second, it is a matter of how corrupt corporations are. Corporations primary goal is profits and not the public good, creating jobs. Just look at the anti-climate change propaganda A defender of undo corporate influence wrote”Charles Manson is a total dickhead. But he should, as a citizen of the United States, delight in? the aptly of free speech…the question is not how nasty corporations are” first Charles Manson is a prisoner and her doesn’t have the full rights of residency anymore. Second, it is a matter of how corrupt corporations are. Corporations primary goal is profits and not the public excellent, making jobs. Just look at the anti-climate change propaganda

]]> By: Exmech2 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1723 Exmech2 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:48:30 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1723 My Father was a regional leader of the NRA in New York for many years (60s and 70s era). But you're quite right, political NPOs do afford a voice for many who have few other resources. So I will concede that point. But considering Corporations can donate to NPOs as well, why the need for corporate sponsors to give an unfair advantage to specific candidates? My Limb of the clergy was a regional leader of the NRA in New York for many years (60s and 70s era).

But you’re quite aptly, political NPOs do afford a voice for many who have few other resources. So I will concede that point. But considering Corporations can donate to NPOs as well, why the need for corporate sponsors to give an unfair advantage to specific candidates?

]]> By: Exmech2 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1722 Exmech2 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:04:50 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1722 Ol' Chuck doesn't enjoy ALL of his rights, but he does enjoy free speech. I'm not arguing against against the ruling because I have some neurotic paranoia of corporations. This is an unreasonable premise. I maintain that unlimited corporate sponsorship will be an unfair advantage not enjoyed by all candidates, thus, not a fair election. There is a big difference between are your argument and mine. The stereotyping of corporations doesn't help your case at all. Ol’ Chuck doesn’t delight in ALL of his rights, but he does delight in free speech. I’m not arguing against against the ruling because I have some neurotic paranoia of corporations. This is an unreasonable premise. I maintain that unlimited corporate sponsorship will be an unfair advantage not loved by all candidates, thus, not a honest election. There is a huge difference between are your line of reasoning and mine. The stereotyping of corporations doesn’t help your case at all.

]]> By: AntiCitizenX http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-1721 AntiCitizenX Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:19:49 +0000 http://www.hendrixcampaign.com/2010/03/02/corporate-free-speech/#comment-1721 I guess my next question is simply, What constitutes an "unfair" advantage? So far, all I have been hearing is stuff like "corporations are profit-seekers with lots of money to throw around..." I'm sure there is a better way to explain it, but I do not find the mere virtue of wealth or self-interest as a pretext for restricting speech. I guess my next question is simply,

What constitutes an “unfair” advantage?

So far, all I have been hearing is material like “corporations are profit-seekers with lots of money to throw around…”

I’m sure there is a better way to give reasons for it, but I do not find the mere virtue of wealth or self-interest as a pretext for restricting speech.

]]>