I am appalled at the blatant ignorance people who can write [and breed] have of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill o' Rights and The Federalist Papers.
Posted on 02/11/2010 12:40:18 PM PST by ricks_place
“Actually, the law they overturned prohibited direct spending by both corporations and unions.”
You’re right, but you are going against the class warfare rants spurred by Rush L.’s show saying the opposite, special privileges for unions, etc. All false.
It will work out like the Soros Amendment in the McCain bill. The Unions will be ever more empowered, the fantasized Corporate empowerment will not appear as much.
I think the Republican establishment understood this. In the past they tooted their horns for money speech, this time around silence.
The constitution specifically talks about the right of “The Press”. That is not an individual person. Nor is it the government. The Constitution specifically talks about the right of a “well regulated militia”. Again, this is neither an individual person, nor the government. The Constitution also says that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or the people. So, by Nader’s logic, that the Constitution does not specifically use the word ‘corporation’, then the Government should not have the right to regulate them.
Nader’s whole argument is discredited by a simpler fact: that the Big Three automobile companies lost heir monopoly. This always happens. JP Morgan’s US Steel lost its monopoly within fifteen years.
There is no viable and/or honest or truthful case against corporate speech except by those who are not part of the real world. In brief, stupid’s
then why have the unions been allowed to run ads in past elections? Shouldn’t this have been stopped by the FEC or court order?
Corporations are artificial constructs created to protect individuals from personal liability. Corporations only exist under rules created by the states.
Which leads me to wonder if the individual states can limit the speech rights of corporations.
Augmentation not correction! lol
And they are owned by people who get taxed on any income they receive from them.
Taxing corporations is double-taxation.
My point stands. No taxation without representation.
Yes, it’s double taxation - though of course, it is fairly easy to limit a corporations tax bill. But the whole point of a corporation is that you accept the tax in order to protect yourself from liability in the face of any number of events.
People willing accept double taxation due to the other benefits.
The biggest political donors are government employee unions (including teachers) and lawyers.
If corporations shouldn’t be allowed, then neither should unions.
Conversely if unions can (as at present) then so should corporations.
I wonder if Nadar’s books, public appearances, etc., are made in the name of a shell corporation to protect him from legal action.
Would be interesting to know.
My point exactly.
States cannot restrict a constitutional right such as free speech. But I suppose that a state does not have to grant limited liability to a corporation since the constitution does not guarantee you the right to freedom of speech with a guarantee of no liability for what you say.
As matter of opinion, many of the so called excesses of capitalism is actually excesses by corporations that have been granted extraordinary powers by our government. Perhaps the formation of corporations is a constitutional right but the grant of limited liability is unconstitutional?
The fatal Nader flaw is the same flaw of all leftism: the denial of the humanity of the associations of free men to oppose them. In this regard Nader is not different from the architects of the Holocaust.
Uhhh... No. No, it's not.
I'm all for abolishing corporations, but to see that their purpose is to -be taxed twice is delusional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.