Greg commented on 'Citizens United v FEC: The First Amendment Rights of...
Footnote 7 - Scalia's concurring opinion, Page 8The dissent says that “ ‘speech’ ” refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at...
View ArticleAlex commented on 'Citizens United v FEC: The First Amendment Rights of...
Is there a distinction for foreign or multi-national corporations. It does not make sense to give US citizen protections to foreign corporate interests. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense that the...
View ArticleHocking HIck commented on 'Citizens United v FEC: The First Amendment Rights...
The authorized spokesman of a corporation does not speak for every shareholder -- just a few bigwigs.From the comments at Volokh:"The point being that the speech of a company or a union is controlled...
View ArticleJoe commented on 'Citizens United v FEC: The First Amendment Rights of...
I don't see how the owners of the corporation matter in this debate. After all, don't we teach in Corporations class that a corporation is a legal entity, separate from its shareholders? It's a bit too...
View ArticleSigivald commented on 'Citizens United v FEC: The First Amendment Rights of...
Alex: One doesn't separate them. That's the point.Can you explain how my rights are being trampled because a 501(c) or even a plain old for-profit corporation can speak politically? (For extra credit,...
View ArticleJohn commented on 'Citizens United v FEC: The First Amendment Rights of...
The problem with corporate "person" is that corporations don't have the downsides of a real "person". Corporations more than ever are super people who can live forever, but don't breathe, eat, sleep,...
View Article
