noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:
That's very much not the case. Which is why i keep saying coporate personhood does no apply.
"The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_Opinion
|
I see. Interesting. I pray that the Wikipedia author is simply misunderstanding what was actually said. Otherwise, I'm beginning to better understand what the fuss was all about, then. It's rather like letting some folks have their cake and eat it too.
I gotta look into this, because that just flat out can't be right.
|
You can just outright read the decision if you want. It's available somewhere.
I read it... that's more or less it. Well that and it mentions how essentially making it legal more or less makes it legal to censor the press as well consitutionally.
It's all very well founded and reasoned. No reason to actually get upset over it.
