General Discussion

dmr

(28,705 posts)

43. This is what troubles me:

Sat May 26, 2012, 12:41 PM

May 2012

The "speech" of a corporation reflects the thoughts and feelings of the individuals that control it.

What I see here is that the individuals that control the corporations are heard twice. Once as themselves individually, & then corporately.

Somehow that does not seem fair.

A powerful corporate head who 'speaks' loudly with an unlimited bankroll, who is then heard again as a private citizen with more than likely an unlimited bankroll.

And, then there's me - a private citizen with limited means, & who is also dependent on a fair & just government who is barely heard above all the din.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I have to share this comment I found on a Citizens United petition. [View all] Gregorian May 2012 OP

"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." That's my fave rebuttal to Demit May 2012 #1

Can corporations get married? How can we determine gender? Can I see its birth certificate? alfredo May 2012 #19

I beleive marriage is between a man corporation and a woman corporation as the Bible says... rfranklin May 2012 #45

Can a multinational become president? alfredo May 2012 #51

Isn't that what a merger is? And if so shouldn't they only be allowed to do it once? Live and Learn May 2012 #47

I guess a merger is a civil union. Is polygamy legal for corporations? alfredo May 2012 #50

spectacularly said. robinlynne May 2012 #2

The New York Times Corporation is not human, Nye Bevan May 2012 #3

The question is: RobertEarl May 2012 #4

Well said and good questions! n/t Spazito May 2012 #14

That is verbal endorsement. It differs from financial support. Gregorian May 2012 #5

I daresay the editors can endorse, even in such a case. bigmonkey May 2012 #6

By standing on a street corner and telling people who they endorse? Nye Bevan May 2012 #7

The press has it's own constitutional protections.. . . .n/t annabanana May 2012 #11

DemocraticUnderground LLC is not human. It doesn't have thoughts and feelings. Nye Bevan May 2012 #18

I see your point. randome May 2012 #23

So it's the unlimited contributions that effectively distort the election process. Gregorian May 2012 #25

to say the ACLU supports Citizens United druidity33 May 2012 #33

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in favor of Citizens United (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #34

You are being obtuse...of course they believe in free speech for corporations... rfranklin May 2012 #46

The newspaper is not endorsing a candidate Scootaloo May 2012 #29

The voice of unlimited funds of a large corporation..... Sheepshank May 2012 #8

Well, the way for your voice to get as much attention as Koch's, Nye Bevan May 2012 #16

These collections of people are called "unions". Republicans are trying to outlaw them. Scuba May 2012 #26

And the democrats... awoke_in_2003 May 2012 #40

You do realize what you just said, right? Scootaloo May 2012 #30

I agree with the ACLU on this issue (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #31

According to the 1% and their bootlickers... IrishAle May 2012 #17

I've been a poll worker for over 10 years. Not once have I seen a corporation on alfredo May 2012 #9

Legislating radicalism from the bench. Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #10

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe May 2012 #12

Excellent articulation of why Corp.'s do not "speak" (they can't think nor feel). SunSeeker May 2012 #13

Exactly. Corporations speak for the shareholders. raouldukelives May 2012 #15

Many are passive investors. Teacher pension funds are invested in many corporations bigbrother05 May 2012 #20

Too true. I would imagine it would take many teachers raouldukelives May 2012 #39

the best argument I have ever heard. zeemike May 2012 #21

But "speech" in the constitutional sense also tblue37 May 2012 #22

I found that to be too narrow as well. Gregorian May 2012 #24

Citizen's United provided corporate CEOs with even more influence that ultimately destroys pacalo May 2012 #27

K & R Scurrilous May 2012 #28

Du rec. Nt xchrom May 2012 #32

SCOTUS ?? bleedinglib May 2012 #35

Along with the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief Nye Bevan May 2012 #38

Speech is.... speech. Money is amplification. FredStembottom May 2012 #36

That definition of speech has almost nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. aikoaiko May 2012 #37

It's a flawed statement, but the conclusion is important. Gregorian May 2012 #44

That is a fantastic quote! GObamaGO May 2012 #41

of corporations, by corporations, for corporations. pansypoo53219 May 2012 #42

This is what troubles me: dmr May 2012 #43

I was deeply disheartened by Obama's recent endorsement of corporate ethical ambivalence tcaudilllg May 2012 #48

I think he's saying that corporations can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own, Nye Bevan May 2012 #49