Thursday, January 21, 2010
I'm Reading Citizens United
As a Massachusetts native I am pretty amazed that there was not much whining here over the election and many I work with (in liberal Cambridge no less) have been all smiles all week. Very strange, and then we get a possible real banking reform proposal today from the President? Will wonders never cease?
I'm wondering if you could address the larger issue of why corporations should have rights like people do?
That's my main concern.
I haven't read the decision, and am not a lawyer, but would appreciate your perspective.
Since NOT ONE PERSON IN THE COUNTRY IS PROPOSING SUCH A THING, I don't understand why you think it's a larger issue?
Assemblages of people can not have their right to free speech infringed because they are an assemblage. The reason for their assemblage is immaterial.
It is not really fair to make it law that a person with several millions can fund whatever speech he likes, while the law makes it illegal for his twenty neighbors to combine their efforts and convey their message.
Also, the best thing about this ruling is that it will shift payments and funding of messages more to the open and away from direct payments to the candidate.
In my opinion, the reason why so many Critters are so averse to allowing people to compete for votes on the market is that it greatly cuts down on their ability to extract money from companies.
I think this helps radio revenue due to ,ore ads being run directly by companies in targeted effort. Radio is very effective and cheaper than TV.
Protectionism, for example.
Links to this post: