HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » SCOTUS lifts lid on corporate political spending

Reply to Osgood

I absolutely agree with your use of the F (fascism) word here. Too many people equate the f word with Hitler. Hitler was far less of a fascist then Stalin was or China's Hu is today. Singapore is very much a fascist state, although the line between Confucianism and fascism is difficult t define.

Bottom line is Jeffersonian. He understood the dangers of corporate power .. something he equated with the North.

Corps are not people but neither are unions people. "we" the people is an oxymoron.

Corporations are profit making entities. They exist as individuals only to make money. If individuals who own these entities want to buy an election (as Paul Allen did here) then our system allows that. If Paul Allen wants to buy 51% of Boeing and THEN use Boeing's pre tax dollars to buy an election THAT should not be allowed.

I think some of the free speech issue has to do with the distinction between groups of people and sets of money. Look at it this way, my synagogue is not allowed to spend money on polituics. It, however, is an individual in the same sense that Boeing is.

Unions are a different issue then corporations because a union's have a democratic structure.

So, it seems to me that an answer would be that no organization that does not have a democratic structure should be allowed to spend non taxed dollars on political affairs. This would allow unions, pacs, and maybe even some churchesto spend money but allow not entities owned and controlled by investors to spend coproate dollars.

This would be a hard pill for dems and reps as well. The effect would likely end corporate support for charities as well as corporate support for politicians.