On one hand I really don't care about the companies here; On the other hand I just know that they will somehow fuck this up and undermine the 1st amendment.
Corporations dont have human rights, so whats the problem?No, just banning them from speaking isn't the solution. Every slope is slippery, that just opens the door to Congress banning powerful individuals, and then anyone critical of the majority, and then the majority itself.
Every slope is slippery given enough time. What's to stop the overton window from shifting in 20 years, and democrats making an amendment that "fascists" don't have a right to speak, and then citing this as case law?Corporations dont have human rights, so whats the problem?
How is this case law? we are talking about corporations, not humans.Every slope is slippery given enough time. What's to stop the overton window from shifting in 20 years, and democrats making an amendment that "fascists" don't have a right to speak, and then citing this as case law?
>corporations exert too much influence over elections and are dangerous, let's ban them from speakingHow is this case law? we are talking about corporations, not humans.
Its also not something that was always there, its that way since 2010.
No sections. Actual grammatical and spelling mistakes. Statement of purpose and reasoning longer than the actual law. More surplusage than CWC.Not gonna lie, wouldn't mind the political power of corporations being stomped flat, but this type of legislation is extremely abusable. Needs a lot of tweaking or even just a full re-write. How about this instead?
The political power of multinational corporate entities has reached a point where it is no longer tolerable. This legislation, through it's approval and application by the federal and state governments respectably, shall reduce the influence of these corporations on our elections. Under this amendment, no corporate entity with ties to foreign powers may engage in advertising for political candiates, or donate funds to said candidates. A corporation can not be classified as a citizen, and can not be treated as such with how these entities can handily influence our national proceedings.
Secondly, no corporate entity may lobby the federal government, state government, or the governorship of our nations' territories. Though, as an important exception, US based local businesses, of a size and wealth generally smaller than the average corporation, may lobby local, state, and the federal government for greivences. Non corporate groups, such as protest, charity, etcetera, are not bound by this amendment.
Breaking up the monopolies in Silicon Valley is regulation. Ideally, a total ban on corporate donations would curtail a lot of problems in government, but that would never get to the voting stage.Break up the monopolies in Silicon Valley and the problem goes away without regulation. Government made the problem, so why would more government be able to fix anything?
Considering how much Silicon Valley gets in subsidies and special government privileges, yes it's technically regulation, but it would be more of reversing previous regulation. Monopolies can't form without the power to prevent others from entering the market, and the most tyrannical of all powers is government regulation and intervention making it impossible for alternatives to compete.Breaking up the monopolies in Silicon Valley is regulation. Ideally, a total ban on corporate donations would curtail a lot of problems in government, but that would never get to the voting stage.
I mean, this is also true. This isn't a "most sides" issue, either - consistently in interviews and polls, Democrat politicians and voters have expressed far more willingness to get rid of (or at least heavily abridge) our existing constitution. So, basically, no, fuck off for all eternity.The democrats are behind a proposed constitutional amendment?
The answer is no, every single time. They've shown their true colors regarding freedom of speech, and they are not to be trusted.
So by that same logic, if government taxes cut into my megaphone fund then it's a First Amendment violation?The rationale for that conclusion is not, as critics often claim, that "money is speech." The point, rather, is that people must spend money to communicate with large numbers of their fellow citizens. Limits on spending therefore restrict their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.