Freedom of speech??

[KSMountain]

Well, if you read Roberts’ comments, I don’t think he would characterize it as a conservative decision. (Not sure what you meant by that word).

I’m pretty sure he would say that in forming his opinion the last thing he considered was the possible impact on Democrats or Republicans.

And I hope that’s true.

One example he cited was that under current law, you couldn’t even distribute a politically-oriented pamphlet if it had funding by a corporation (even a non-profit corporation).

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.

[scaredyclassic]

money talks. people are hard to hear.

[scaredyclassic]

money talks. people are hard to hear.

[scaredyclassic]

money talks. people are hard to hear.

[scaredyclassic]

money talks. people are hard to hear.

[scaredyclassic]

money talks. people are hard to hear.

[paramount]

[quote=KSMountain]

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.[/quote]

No, it really *does/did* not limit their speech – companies could form PAC’s which had almost no restrictions in that regard.

Leading up to this decsion corporate interests excercised free speech with a bull horn and real people a wisper – now these real people have also been struck with laryngitis.

Corporations may be comprised of, but they are NOT a person (that seems pretty obvious to me).

[paramount]

[quote=KSMountain]

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.[/quote]

No, it really *does/did* not limit their speech – companies could form PAC’s which had almost no restrictions in that regard.

Leading up to this decsion corporate interests excercised free speech with a bull horn and real people a wisper – now these real people have also been struck with laryngitis.

Corporations may be comprised of, but they are NOT a person (that seems pretty obvious to me).

[paramount]

[quote=KSMountain]

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.[/quote]

No, it really *does/did* not limit their speech – companies could form PAC’s which had almost no restrictions in that regard.

Leading up to this decsion corporate interests excercised free speech with a bull horn and real people a wisper – now these real people have also been struck with laryngitis.

Corporations may be comprised of, but they are NOT a person (that seems pretty obvious to me).

[paramount]

[quote=KSMountain]

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.[/quote]

No, it really *does/did* not limit their speech – companies could form PAC’s which had almost no restrictions in that regard.

Leading up to this decsion corporate interests excercised free speech with a bull horn and real people a wisper – now these real people have also been struck with laryngitis.

Corporations may be comprised of, but they are NOT a person (that seems pretty obvious to me).

[paramount]

[quote=KSMountain]

In a sense, that really *does* limit speech – the speech of the corporation’s officers and even by extension its shareholders.[/quote]

No, it really *does/did* not limit their speech – companies could form PAC’s which had almost no restrictions in that regard.

Leading up to this decsion corporate interests excercised free speech with a bull horn and real people a wisper – now these real people have also been struck with laryngitis.

Corporations may be comprised of, but they are NOT a person (that seems pretty obvious to me).

[bsrsharma]

Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.

[bsrsharma]

Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.

[bsrsharma]

Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.

[bsrsharma]

Purely as a business strategy, I think spending money on election campaigns has a lower return on investment compared to alternatives. For example, lobbying. Financing campaigns produces uncertain results whereas “buying” the politician after the election produces predictable outcomes. Look at the enormous success of lobbyists compared to voters in U.S. at every level of government.

Another issue many have raised is whether foreigners/foreign government have freedom of speech in U.S. I believe they have; but it would be stupid foreigner to push the commonsense limits. Again alternative modes are more effective. See the success of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Similarly, China achieves its objectives through U.S. Chamber of Commerce rather than engaging in “free speech”.

[Author]

Posts