How are corporate donations different from bribery?

[howard112211]

I mean, ok, I get the argument that a coorporation, being a group of people, should have freedom of speech like other groups of people, say, a group of peace activists for instance.

But I don't get since when handing around coffers full of cash is considered "free speech". I mean, anything that concerns money being passed around usually has some sort of regulation to it. Speech is, well, speech. I don't get how they justify extending the definition of speech to handing someone a bundel of cash. If one "reads the law as it is written", handing a bundle of cash is handing a bundle of cash, not "speaking".

By this new definition of speech, it also should be my freedom of speech to hand a police officer 10.000 dollars to drop charges against me.

[midnight]

1. Good question...

[Anakin Skywalker]

2. When It's Approved By the Supreme Clowns!

[howard112211]

3. Arbitrary rulings like that are an extremely dangerous thing IMO.

[blogslut]

4. Corporations are still banned from donating

What the SCOTUS ruling did was allow corporations to declare support for political candidates via advertising.

[Bluerthanblue]

5. and unequal 'rights'- those with more cash have disproportionate

rights to be heard.

If money is the equivalent of speech, then shouldn't all people be endowed with cash? shouldn't it be a "given" rather than something which is supposedly "earned"?

[treestar]

6. Speech versus paying for media access to disseminate it

That seems to be the issue. Individuals too could donate billions - remember Ross Perot? I have the same free speech rights as Ross Perot but could only set up a soap box in the park.

Now we can talk on the internet though, and influence each other. We aren't just sitting in the living room watching ads on TV with only one way to the dialogue. that's why I'm not so pessimistic here.