- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.So you think that the SCOTUS overturning abortions rights was egregious so in retaliation you want them to overturn free speech rights
Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.
ExactlyCorporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.
Ask them what they think about mandatory organ donation after their deaths. They think a corpse has more body autonomy than women.It says a great deal about conservative America that they view the rights of corporations as more important than those of women.
Why are you so upset? Biden's in the White House.It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.Corporate Speech
Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.www.mtsu.edu
Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.
Then why did you use the phrase "you think" when what you really meant was "I think?"Yes that was my point
LOL - you are adorable. How are you going to overturn it? We need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything - how many republicans, who are now in power, are going to vote to overturn their pig trough?It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.Corporate Speech
Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.www.mtsu.edu
Then why did you use the phrase "you think" when what you really meant was "I think?"
Were you? Because the OP's post outlined a bunch of reasons you somehow appear to have missed entirely. Like you didn't read a single word written in the OP...I was inferring that was the position of the OP based on this post and several others I have seen them make on this topic
It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.Corporate Speech
Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.www.mtsu.edu
To succinctly answer the thread question, YES.It seems that up until the conservatives on SCOTUS decided Citizen's the court approved of some limitations on spending by corporations and individuals. See link above. And when deciding Citizen's the court made two false assumptions about the outcome. The first was it would have little effect on our elections which we now know is totally wrong. The second was that even though it opened the flood gates for the wealthy and corporations to buy candidates by flooding the campaigns with money, that people would know who made those contributions and that would effect how they voted. As we now know, that has not happened, just the opposite. Dark money has become the rule and we do not even know if we are voting for a candidate who has taken money from foreign individuals, foreign corporations or even foreign governments. So maybe it is time to overturn Citizens or change it so we do know who is donating to campaigns.Corporate Speech
Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in elections.www.mtsu.edu
And selective since it punished Disney; a corporation for exercising their free speechThe Citizens United decision was shit.
Corporate speech is not a right enumerated in the constitution, nor is it "deeply rooted in tradition," therefore Alito's reasoning would imply it should be overturned.
I would agree. And, apparently, so does Alito.There's no such thing as "corporate speech." Corporations don't have minds or mouths. Corporations are comprised of people. People have minds and mouths.
Where in the Constitution does it infer corporate free speech rights?So you think that the SCOTUS overturning abortions rights was egregious so in retaliation you want them to overturn free speech rights
Where in the Constitution does it infer corporate free speech rights?
Where in the Constitution does it infer corporate free speech rights?
It doesn't. People have free speech rights, but the business is not a person.Where does it say that joining a corporation requires you to lose you free speech rights
This has not been anyone's argument.Do you think Hollywood studios can be prohibited from making movies addressing political issues?
Can newspapers owned by billionaires be prohibited from publishing editorials?
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?