Celestial Lands The Religious Crossroads of Politics, Power, and Theology

5 Thoughts on “Crossing the Rubicon

  1. That’s a bit much. I’d say Obama drove the nail into campaign finance reform when he turned down fed funds in favor of his own fund raising in the last election.

    Free speech is free speech, whether it comes from corporations, George Soro’s millions, or guys like us with blogs.

    I wouldn’t want the Gov limiting what I could blog on or spend my dough…same right goes to Corps and Unions.

  2. Bill,

    Corporations are not individual persons, and they should not have the same rights as individual people. Protect the rights of individuals… not of corporations.

    Especially not in an age when most of the largest corporations are international in their makup.

    But you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. To paraphrase Francis David, I will defend to the death your right to be wrong… as an individual. I object when you enlist your multi-billion, multi-national corporation to threaten politicians into allowing you to enforce your being wrong on others.

    Yours in Faith,


  3. I think any association of people, whether a corporation, or a union, or what ever, should be free to spend their money to voice their opinions.

    The thought of suppressing that speech scares me far more than the results of letting it happen.

  4. I disagree that corporations are primarily “associations of people”. Corporations are primarily associations of business interests that government has allowed to incorporate to protect the personal assets of individual people who are associated with them.

    In other words, the people involved are insulated from personal fiduciary responsibility for the failures of that corporation, except for how much of the corporation’s stock they might own.

    If you or I use our freedom of speech in ways that endanger the lives of others (say, should fire in a crowded theatre) we can be held personally responsible for those actions. Those involved in a corporation cannot be held to that standard of public responsibility for the actions of corporations.

    The freedom of speech is far from absolute… and all freedom must be balanced by a corresponding responsibility for its use. Corporations exist to protect the individuals involved with them from personal responsibility for the actions of the corporation… and because of that they should not be considered “persons” by the law nor granted that freedom.

    There are times when the constitution needs to be amended… this is perhaps one of those times. But it will never happen because the weight of political power in this country has shifted away from the people.

    Yours in Faith,


  5. I’m with Glenn Greenwald on this one. First and second posts on the topic. On your points, the 4 dissenting justices all agreed that corporations can be treated as persons with First Amendments rights and that money is speech. Also, the First Amendment community was nearly equally divided on this decision.

    I would add that a veneer is worse than a naked, but dispiriting, truth. On Obama’s election, he raised more corporate money, especially on Wall Street, than either Hillary or McCain. Since then, he’s made it perfectly clear that corporations don’t have anything to fear from him.

    In general, another good points is that some corporations, such as GE and NewsCorp, have enormous “free” speech rights currently. Letting the ACLU spend money on an ad sounds good, doesn’t it? Finally, with YouTube and the like, ad distribution can very wide but be incredibly cheap. The TV market is incredibly fragmented. It is CW that ads work, but are they worth it?

    Bill, although I agree with you on this one, can you leave George Soros out of it?

    PS Who reads your NT CD?

Leave a Reply

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: