acollectivegood (acollectivegood) wrote in talk_politics,

SuperPACs - Looking for opinions

So I have to admit I do understand the decision, at least in part, that the Supreme Court made in "Citizen's United". If I'm wealthy, perhaps I should have the right to spend what I want to express my opnion in a country that guarantees free speech. Yes there is a compelling argument that in a democracy everyone should have an equal voice, but that is not the point of this particular post. But I have two questions about the ruling:

1. Corporations and unions - If people look at the history the idea that "they are people too" is actually not as grounded in the law as you'd think. This idea was actually a throw in by a court reporter who may have misconstrued what was being said in the court one day. So do we really believe that corporations and unions are individuals? Can ExxonMobil or Nike show up at the polls and cast a vote?

2. Okay, so let's assume we accept #1 and say that they are individuals. It still seems that if I am a union member of a corporate shareholder that the union or corporation should not be allowed "like an individual" to use my money to express it's free speech without my permission, no?

Unfortunately, since one side of the aisle is benefiting more from the ruling than the other (and this is not to begrudge the GOP - either side would likely resist change when they have an advantage), we are unlikely to see anything change unless citizens as a whole force the issue. Anyway, I'm curious about opinions...

My blogs:

Uncovering what politicians won't talk about, or how they manipulate what they do say: Political Truth Serum

A site dedicated to promoting open and honest debate: A Collective Good

Tags: campaigning, corporations, freedom of speech
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded