It's Goldilocks weather in Sarasota this week, with the highs in the low 70s and blue skies.
Mrs. Phred has issued her verdict on the vacation this year. It's going to be a month in Holland and the vicinity (with a ten-day riverboat cruise at the end out of Amsterdam to see the tulips and windmills).
Speaking of verdicts...how about that US Supreme court decision that we cannot pass laws restricting the rights of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect political candidates of their choice? Was there ever any doubt that the US has become the world's first grand experiment in corporatocracy? Apparently the Court based their decision on the notion that money talks and therefore limiting money spent by corporations limits free speech. Stupid me. I thought free speech was an individual right that was granted by the 1st Amendment to our constitution.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Apparently these "distinguished" old men (and women) failed to reason that:
1. Corporations lack mouths and therefore cannot speak.
2. The Constitution to which this amendment applies applies to "We, the people", not to artificial entities.
3. It is illogical that States can legally create corporations, but cannot legally regulate their behavior.
It's time for a new Amendment to rein in judicial activism run amok.
sounds like fun and looks beautiful...sil
ReplyDeleteBob, if you ban corporations from political speech are you going to ban trade unions? How about trade associations like the US Chamber of Commerce? At what point do groupings of like-minded individuals become evil corporations who lose their free speech protections? AARP? NAACP? WWF? They're all big businesses who just happen to subscribe to a point-of-view! Why should their speech be any more protected than IBM or Microsoft or Exxon? What do you have against the profit motivation? Is it OK for groups like MoveOn.org to buy full-page ads in the New York Times running down General Petraeus (Betray Us!) but a corporation can't argue the evils of Cap & Trade?
ReplyDeleteJust like your buddy Obama, you don't trust your fellow citizens to make good choices or decisions.
That's just pure elitism.
-Mike Tanis
wow! you just crossed the line into political dante's inferno.....no matter how hard you kick a corporation they will only fall so far? guess there are other ways to regulate a corp? go get um cowboy.......
ReplyDeleteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ReplyDeleteMike,
That's President Obama to you.
What you fail to consider is that trade unions and NAACP are PEOPLE who have peaceably assembled and who have a right speak freely and to petition the government. Corporations are not collections of people and neither is the US Chamber of Commerce.
By the way, I'm a VietNam veteran and I totally agree with MoveOn that the War in Iraq was a moronic blunder, possibly the worst foreign policy decision of the last 200 years
MoveOn comprises two legal entities, each organized under a different section of U.S. tax and election laws:
MoveOn.Org is made up of two entities and both have rights granted to them under the IRS code. The 501(c)(4) organization can accept contributions, but these are not tax deductible.
MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on national issues.
MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal political action committee, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, gives contributions to candidates across the country to advance causes in Congress and help elect selected political candidates.
Frankly, I think contributions to PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations should be limited to individuals and should be limited for individuals to some reasonable amount.
That's my 2 cents worth...call me an elitist???