Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, September 06, 2019

Here are five rules of free speech and corporations.

Rule #1: Corporations have First Amendment rights.
Rule #2: The media doesn't have any greater First Amendment rights than other speakers.
Rule #3: Unions have free speech rights, too.
Rule #4: Individual stockholders can't veto corporations' political spending"whether those corporations publish newspapers or make widgets.
Rule #5: Corporate and union direct contributions to candidate campaigns can be sharply limited, though independent spending is fully protected.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

At the link there is an explanation of the rules or watch the video.

The above is the fifth in a series of Free Speech Rules, which I recommend. www.youtube.com

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-06 01:37 AM | Reply

That is one huge pile of crap. Tell me ET Al, did the founding fathers believe corporate spending constituted free speech? You show me where they ever said anything of the kind. Corporate personhood is a lie made up by corporatists to allow them to buy Congress and the rest of our government. It is directly contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers and you and everyone else know that as well as I do but you will lie about it while I won't.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-06 09:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Danni,

The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from burning books.

Sorry that CU rained on your book-burning parade.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-06 10:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Sorry that CU rained on your book-burning parade."

I can still read books Jeff, too bad you don't. You pretend to be an originalist but then deny that the founders are rolling over in their graves about CU. Do you honestly think they wanted the Great East India Tea Company to be able to buy Congressmen?

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-06 10:18 AM | Reply

"What the Founding Fathers Really Thought About Corporations"

hbr.org

"Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, knows a whole lot about corporations in the early days of the American republic. When the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations in January, the ruling (pdf!) struck him as dramatically at odds with how the Founding Fathers saw the role of the corporation. As he put it in a comment to this blog:

The majority opinion is discovering corporate rights in a Constitution written by people with a dramatically different conception of corporate power and the limits thereof, and an understanding of citizenship as something based on accountability and membership in civil society."

#5 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-06 10:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

McCain-Feingold prohibited the release of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, Danni.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from doing that. That's why the government lost in court. Alito specifically asked if McCain-Feingold also applied to books. The government lawyer responded, "yes".

I don't know where you get the notion that the government can burn books. It can't.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-06 10:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"I don't know where you get the notion that the government can burn books. It can't."

Pretending that was the major effect of CU is dishonest Jeff, and you know it. It changed politics in a very bad way, argue your fool brains out but you can't honestly say the founding fathers would approve of "money is free speech." That is horse crap. The movie about Hillary was in very bad taste but relatively unimportant in the overall argument. like so much of the Republican assault on the Constitution the right wing court used that movie as an excuse to allow unlimited corporate money in our politics. No wonder so many industries like pharmaceuticals rip off American consumers so easily, they are buying the right to do so by buying politicians. You can support that all you want but you know as well as I do it is wrong. How much did your conscience cost them anyway?

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-06 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The movie about Hillary was in very bad taste but relatively unimportant in the overall argument.

Actually, it was critical to the overall argument.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from banning books and movies, especially political ones.

That you are all for it is why the founders wrote and ratified the 1st Amendment in the first place, because they knew the fascist tendencies of people like you.

Jesus. Do you not even know what Citizens United was about? Clearly you don't.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-06 10:50 AM | Reply

The above is the fifth in a series of Free Speech Rules, which I recommend. www.youtube.com

#1 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I look forward to checking it out. Thanks for sharing.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-06 10:52 AM | Reply

#5 | Posted by danni

I have to be part of civil society? Uh oh.

#10 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-06 02:42 PM | Reply

Posted by danni

You have a very myopic view of the Constitution. It is an outline for the formation of a government. The minutia of governance is left to those who govern. It says not one word about the relationship between corporations and the government.

We can each line up historians and their opinions about what the Founders thought about that subject but in the end such is really not helpful. That's true because those individual opinions have been congealed in the documents they produced.

So, what did those who govern, from that era, actually do as opposed to what they said individually? For one, they wrote the Bill of Rights against the counter argument that such is unnecessary because the body already takes care of the concerns. However, the prevailing argument was, yeah right but just in case some don't get it (this is where you look in the mirror) we'll put it in writing anyway.

Among the first of hedges against those who just don't get it, they wrote that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Perhaps you can find a word or two in there that limits or defines who may speak, how they can say it or what they can say. But I can't. For the most part nor have the courts.

Something else those of the era did was enact the Dictionary Act. It dates to the late 18th or early 19th century. That statute defines who is a person. That definition expressly includes corporations.

So, you look at what some Founders, or those of their era, said or you think they said. I'll look at what they actually did.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2019-09-06 02:44 PM | Reply

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

It did in 2. It pulled every copy of "The Nucleanic Ladder" and books like it, even from the Library of Congress.On 1 we had total media control. But look at what's happening now. Money is power, and 90% of media is five billionaires with roughly the same goals.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-06 02:47 PM | Reply

*nucleonic

#13 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-06 02:48 PM | Reply

reclaimdemocracy.org

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-06 04:53 PM | Reply

If corporations are "people" they need to go to prison when they break the law.
Since that is psychically impossible then the CEO, Chairman of the board, and all other executives need to take the corporations place in prison.

#15 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-07 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Among the first of hedges against those who just don't get it, they wrote that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Elections aren't free speech.
They are elections.

Why don't you get that?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 06:09 PM | Reply

If corporations are "people" they need to go to prison when they break the law.
Since that is psychically impossible then the CEO, Chairman of the board, and all other executives need to take the corporations place in prison.

#15 | POSTED BYABORTED_MONSON

Exactly

Also perfect justifications for military conscription and a military draft.

#17 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-07 06:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort