No, it is not the same. Regulatory oversight is what we already depend on.
Yes, the Federal Election Commission, the people who were taken to the Supreme Court and lost, because it is unconstitutional to stifle free speech.
Corporations are entities made up of people
Corporations are not entities unto themselves. The "entity" is the collection of people who comprise the corporation, it has NO animate power whatsoever!
but that does not make it the single voice of the people it employs.
Is anyone questioning this? The point I've made is, the people who speak for the corporation, have the corporate interests at heart, and this is beneficial to every associate of that corporation. They DO share this commonality.
It's like teacher friends I have that hate how their unions speak for education in DC. You keep wanting to pretend that the power that a corporation has to weild influence, is some benevolent voice of the people who it employs. It is NOT.
Again, I didn't make that claim, but now that you've mentioned unions... why does their money and influence not do whatever terrible thing will be done if corporations have the same advantage? I fail to understand that part of your logic. I understood when you were dreaming about a world where no money would be involved in politics, but I thought we came back to reality? The fact is, there will always be someone with money to influence people in power, that is why it is especially important to elect people with integrity!
It is merely the voice of its own self interest which may or may not be of benefit to the people it employs or of this country!
Listen to yourself!!!
"It's" own self interest? You mean the evil maniacal corporation? The
"entity" which acts on its own volition to consume power and corrupt politics, and we are powerless to control IT? Careful not to look into the corporation's eyes.... you'll simply have to follow along and do as it says from now on! IT only has IT's self interest at heart... not YOU and ME!
I never said they had no human element Dix. I said it was not neccesarilly representitive of the people within it. I have insinuated it is too likely only representative of a very small percentage of people at the very top. That this is what is wrong with it having the ability to weild so much influence. I have also said that it is my opinion, and one you have not swayed, insults aside.
I'm not trying to sway your opinion, you can have a different one than me and the Supreme Court on freedom of speech! You have repeatedly insinuated that corporations are "it's" without a human element, and even described them as "entities" at one point. Now you want to say that is silly, which it is, but you are the one who keeps talking about corporations as if they are self-serving independent evil forces acting on their own behalf... to a fault, every corporation is run by people! Most of them have hundreds of people who would have to fully support ANY political affiliation of ANY kind, and perhaps thousands of stockholders who would be after the CEO's head if the corporation ever supported something detrimental to them in any way, or drew negative publicity (lower stock prices) for the corporation.
Again with the dumb insults? I have never said corporations are our enemy. I do believe that their very self interest is what we should be guarding against in the political arena. The kind of power they; PAC's; Unions; and other special interest can use to influence elections is beyond ugly, it's fascist. And frankly I am sick and tired of it and excited that so many other people are too!
You can have the last word.
Okay... you believe in freedom of SOME speech, but not ALL? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Because I think we have to agree, we aren't likely to ever stifle all political speech, so where do YOU draw the line? Who's speech is less valuable than someone else? Why are corporate self-interests less important than union self-interests?
Let's do this... ban all political speech! Once a politician announces his/her candidacy, they can no longer make public appearances, because that would involve a public or private venue, who could be an "influence" on politics or a conflict of interest. So no speeches... no appearances... and all they get to put out, is a 3x5 index card with what they oppose and favor... black ink only, and no pictures, that would involve a photographers union who may have some political influence! No mentions of any candidate or party on the news... wouldn't want the news corporations to have undue influence! How does all this sound to you? It's not far from where you are heading!
The SCOTUS decision was a victory for free speech.
