You are wrong. The reich-wing corporate person doesn't exist.
A church is a group that has a right to religious freedom. A newspaper is a group (usually a corporation too) that has freedom of the press. A political party is a group that has a right to freedom of speech. I could go on.
The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.Corporations are not citizens and they are not entitled to protection, .
How many times can you repeat the same thing in all caps until it becomes true?They are NOT people, they are NOT citizens, and they are NOT entitled to 1st amendment rights.
False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.The 1st Amendment was DESIGNED BY OUR FOREFATHERS, TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WITH PROTECTION FROM OPPRESSION. The forefathers NEVER, NOT ONE TIME, CONSIDERED CORPORATIONS.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
One could argue that proselytizing is part of the practice of religion. Secondly the freedom of the press part is self evident.
Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.
You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.
One would have to go back to the declaration of independance to answer that:However the 1st amendment
The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.
All men are created equal. (man being the species, not the gender)
Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.
In this global economy, where our mutuals, personal investments, are spread from the east to the west until they come back again and meet in the middle, how is this at all possible?
If "Super-American, Inc," donate s a zillion dollars to re-elect Senator John Wayne, and Super-America, Inc stock is mostly held by 3 American investment/holding companies, operating on 70% of Chinese investment, how can this not be influential in nature.
It's not slippery-slope. It's reality. I know for a fact that my investments are placed in places all over the globe. And I bet, and I hope, that whoever is on the other end of my money, are doing all they can, to influence in any way they can, anything that will benefit my investment. Why would the Chinese, or any other nation for that matter, not want the same?
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.