|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
Thank you for such an excellent wording on why we have corporate entities. We
have a ruling on the law, which, to me, says that the current laws are the
problem. Congress needs to clarify, amend, and rewrite to address the 'person'
status of corporations. That won't happen until they are forced to see what
trouble is in the works when a corporation has all of the rights of a person.
That is the direction I was taking.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: newbury on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
SCOTUS did NOT say the corporations are 'people'. It said that people can use
corporations as a vehicle for their political speech. Accordingly, the First
Amendment protects the people's speech, whether or not they use a corporate
vehicle to promulgate that speech. SCOTUS also found that it would be impossible
to tailor any rule to restrict some (political) corporate speech, as media
corporations are in that exact business: the promulgation of political (opinion)
speech.
Therefore, for the purposes of determining whether the restrictions at issue
were constitutional, corporations had to be viewed as if they were persons
speaking. Under that viewpoint, the restriction was facially invalid under the
First Amendment.
SCOTUS did NOT say that corporations are people. In effect it said that
corporations speak in the voices of the people who own them or manage them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
