The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
Is there a difference between being allowed to donate and undermining Election laws?
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.
For example: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-flights-on-sunday-but-cites-staff-shortages/
In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.
For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uper-bowl-ads-that-trolled-donald-trump-video
Who is Delta making a campaign contribution to when they express their opinion about the GA voter law? Can you name the politician who received their "donation"?There you go again. Vainly attempting debate.
The current case IS related to CU because CU was a case of free speech. BECAUSE corps have a right to free speech, and because campaign donations are an EXPRESSION of political free speech, corps can make largely unrestricted donations. So, for Moscow Mitch and the anti-free speech Republicans to be against corps expressing their opinion on political matters, then they should be against corps making the kind of campaign donation guaranteed under the 1st A and the CU decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.
Poor Mycroft. Can't get anything right. Shellacked again.
There you go again. Vainly attempting debate.
The current case IS related to CU because CU was a case of free speech. BECAUSE corps have a right to free speech, and because campaign donations are an EXPRESSION of political free speech, corps can make largely unrestricted donations. So, for Moscow Mitch and the anti-free speech Republicans to be against corps expressing their opinion on political matters, then they should be against corps making the kind of campaign donation guaranteed under the 1st A and the CU decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.
Poor Mycroft. Can't get anything right. Shellacked again.
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.
Because Republicans actively engage in cancel culture.
Of course. But my point, sorry if it wasn't clear, was that in one instance allowing corporations to participate in campaigns was applauded since I assume they viewed corporations as political allies and presumed it would be to their benefit. Somewhat ironic or hypocritical that they complained when coprporations got involved in a way they didn't approve of.Is there a difference between being allowed to donate and undermining Election laws?
Fair enough. But at times corporations either roll the dice about their profits when they comment, or even do what's right, irrespective of the risks, as some did in the civil rights era. Example of the first thing: it's said that when Jackie Robinson came up, some owners resisted til they saw increased black attendance at ball games.I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.
For example: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-flights-on-sunday-but-cites-staff-shortages/
In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.
For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uper-bowl-ads-that-trolled-donald-trump-video
I am 99% confident that all that matters is how he sees it. If he is satisfied, then it was was an incredible victory. Whatever nonsense he wrote.
Who is Delta making a campaign contribution to when they express their opinion about the GA voter law? Can you name the politician who received their "donation"?
Once again you are basically supporting mitch's stance. Give us the money and shut up. You don't like it because corporations are now speaking out against the gop voter suppression plans across the country.Who is Delta making a campaign contribution to when they express their opinion about the GA voter law? Can you name the politician who received their "donation"?
If Delta's comments are not a campaign contribution, then those comments are unrelated to the concept of CU.I didn't say that Delta speech expression is necessarily a campaign contribution. A campaign contribution is free speech, but free speech is not necessarily a campaign contribution. Comprende? Or, please clarify what you mean.
Wrong.Once again you are basically supporting mitch's stance. Give us the money and shut up. You don't like it because corporations are now speaking out against the gop voter suppression plans across the country.
Indeed it is all about money. As I've said before, corporate america writes much of our legislation.Wrong.
I don't like a political elite taking money...and providing the necessary service required...from deep pocket donors. And I don't care if Delta speaks out against GA legislation.
I'm smart enough to understand both McConnell's and Delta's motivations for their positions and their motivations actually have nothing to do with the legislation...rather, it's all about money.
Is there a difference between being allowed to donate and undermining Election laws?
CorrectIndeed it is all about money. As I've said before, corporate america writes much of our legislation.
If Delta's comments are not a campaign contribution, then those comments are unrelated to the concept of CU.
If Delta's comments are not a campaign contribution, then those comments are unrelated to the concept of CU.
Funny thing. At the time of our founding there were only about 50 corporations in the new nation; all were incorporated to achieve a specific goal within a timeframe; one of the conditions for forming a corporation was to stay out of politics.In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.
The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
The other was to give up personhood in exact for immunity of personal liability.Funny thing. At the time of our founding there were only about 50 corporations in the new nation; all were incorporated to achieve a specific goal within a timeframe; one of the conditions for forming a corporation was to stay out of politics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?