Reply #70: I hope this thread embarrasses you as much as it should. [View All]

[TexasObserver]

You have missed the issue entirely.

The issue is not whether any corporation can have the right to promote political agendas, but rather, which rules we will have for corporations which do promote political agendas.

You have chased your tail all over the place and still not gleaned that simple point. We regulate charities and limit what they can do if they are to retain their status as an entity to which tax deductible contributions can be made. We regulate educational entities which can collect and spend money to influence subject matter issues in politics without advocating for a particular party or candidate.

In summary, we already regulate the ability of corporations to raise and spend money on causes. We define which of the contributions can be deducted, and which cannot be deducted. It matters greatly if a corporation must spend pre tax or post tax dollars to try to influence elections.

This dilemma presented by the Supreme Court ruling is simple: do we as a society and a functioning representative democracy want to allow international corporations with deep pockets and a multitude of foreign entanglements to freely spend money to influence our elections?

You naively stumble through your version of why one corporation is the same as another, missing the point entirely. We regulate those who try to influence elections, whether they are individuals, partnerships, associations, joint ventures, limited liability companies, or proprietorships. We do so because the body politic requires it. Removing those controls would corrupt the body politic much further than it has already been corrupted, a fact so simple almost everyone gets it.

There were five Supreme Court votes for this ruling - the five right wingers who stole the 2000 election - and you're siding with those five. That should be enough for a progressive to know they are in the wrong, but you don't get it. The fact that the four good justices voted against this decision should have been a clue to you, but it wasn't.