Originally Posted by mikesova
no I think that free speech is a right for living breathing people not artificial entities like corporations. If the entire corporation (all employees) felt the way that the corporation felt, then they can donate their money to the candidate with whom they feel deserves it. This isn't how it works, though. Politicians are going to work for who they get the most money from. So unless you're the C.E.O. of something, they aren't working for you, even if they say they are.
First, corporations are not artifical they are simply a legal definition for the people who own them, nothing more.
Second, the employees of a corporation aren't the corporation, the owners are the corporation. The employees work for the corporation. It's not a collective. A union is a different story.
We agree that politicians shouldn't be working for the highest bidder but they do. However we differ on the solution. You want to punish sucessful people for taking advantage of the situation by taking away their freedom of speech.
I want to remove the power of the government to rule over anything that isn't one of the 18 enumerated powers spelled out in Article I section 8 of the constitution. Having their power limited, as intended, would de-centralize the power structure and make it impossible for anyone to buy it. There would be no power to buy. A weak central government is a good thing. This is how it was before the 1930's when the progressive movement started under FDR and expanded the role of the federal government. Since then all parties have been guilty of increasing and centralizing power in DC. It is now completely corrupted to the point that it will fail within our lifetime if it is not reversed.