(November 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm)polar bear Wrote:(November 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign. I don't think we want less speech in a campaign. What we want is to equalize the amount of speech. A very progressive consumption tax would do just that coupled with making campaign contributions by corporations and people non tax deductible would begin to do that.and corporations are human beings...I got your point of view loud and clear. Totally disagree with you but at least we know who you get your marching orders from
Again, he is cherry picking which class gets to "peaceably assemble" and pool their resources. The First Amendment bans ALL monopolies of power, he stupidly thinks that concept should not apply to business.
Corporations are run by people, but they are not one person collectively. It is basically giving rights to a piece of paper and has actually nothing to do with collectively protect the rights of every citizen no matter what class they fall in.
The government attitude of the First Amendment is that of a sanctuary, if it is to err on any side, it is designed to err to protect the weakest among us. It is not set up to only protect the private sector to allow it to do whatever it wants. If our government was only there to protect the private sector, there would be no right to sue a car company for a defective air bag or ignition switch. There would be no regulation mandating recalls for such things.
