Yes, corporations are just like a person
No, corporations are not just like a person
Newspapers should have freedom of the press applied to them, even when they are corporations. Since some are corporations, the principle must be applied to all corporations.
I am responding:
Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be corporations. If we decide that newspapers cannot be, then it pokes a hole in your notion that corporations ought to be free to speak under the first amendment simply because some newspapers are corporations.
The framework of our democracy is breaking down. 'Radical' notions like rethinking corporatism in favor of a real free market economy will probably be ignored because of complacency. It is simply not painful enough, yet.
A symptom of the growing framework for tyranny is this notion of granting corporations the rights of individuals because they are composed of individuals. Applying the notion of freedom of speech to corporations is analogous to saying that because corporations represent the interests of their owners, they should be allowed to vote. Of course, the likely response would be 'No, the owners can vote for whoever they want as individuals, so why would we give their corporation a vote?'. To which I would respond, 'In the same way, why should we confer on a corporation the right of free speech'.
Because there's no freedom of donation in the Constitution. There is freedom of speech.why can't i donate as much money as i want to any candidate in America?
This supreme court decision had nothing to do with political donations, only speech.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
On the other matter, there is a fundamental difference between news corporations when they report the news and when they lobby on behalf of their own profit interests. Anytime a conflict of interest is possible in news reporting, journalistic ethics require full disclosure of those interests within the story. And those instances are relatively rare. Corporations will only invest money in speech where their interests are at stake.
No time to dig it out right now.
My reponse to your comment (above) is to make you aware of the difference in reality between a vote and speech. No-one has to listen to a corporation 'speak.' So, their speech no matter how compelling and funded can be easily ignored.
Votes, on the other hand must be counted. Respected. Must be factored into policy decisions.
I'm still debating this issue personally and don't have a definite opinion.
Having been out in the wonderful world of work for well over two decades I have seen firsthand that corporations can be stone-cold beyotches and, in their own way, just as oppressive of their employees as an authoritarian government. "So Find another job" doesn't work so well when opportunities are limited and most corporations are acting in similar fashion.
On that note, I am somewhat open to the notion of government forcing corporations to treat their workers with a little decency... however there is a careful balance that has to be struck there. Too much well-meaning intervention will render a corp unprofitable, and jobs will be lost, raises and promotions curtailed, stocks fall and Bad Things Happen.
On the other hand I am a capitalist, and believe that for the most part the "free market" works best when impeded least. I suppose you could say I favor necessary but minimal regulation.
The notion of refusing to recognize corps as "persons", or of refusing to recognize their legal existence at all, has a certain appeal. I'm old enough to remember when most businesses around here were Mom and Pop stores, or sole proprietorships / limited partnerships, before all the big-box stuff moved in and made it hard to compete. Actually I had a small business of my own twenty years ago, in partnership with my father. We went under because we could not compete with the chain franchises.
OTOH, like most extreme measures I'm not sure whether eliminating or severely restricting corporations would actually do more harm than good. Without corporations there is no stock market, yes? That could have its good points, but we'd be talking about dismantling a couple centuries' worth of economic structure...what would take the place of it all? There are things that small businesses do better than big corps, but it is hard to imagine that we could do away with big corps entirely without some serious troubles.
Jury is still out for me on corporations...
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
No beneficial purpose is served by conferring on Corporations the right to free speech. And much harm is done by doing so.
You may be able to list several examples to support your claim that "much harm is done" by giving corporations the 'right to free speech.' And most of those examples will likely be 'sibjective.'
In contrast,... it would only take one example where granting a corporation the 'right to free speech' is 'beneficial' to destroy your above (absolute) claim.
The point will still stand, though it may be weakened slightly. The point doesn't require an absolute in order to be valid. If it did, I would have been much more cautious about using one. And I really don't think I'll lose much sleep over the vanishingly small hit to my credibility, but thanks anyway.