How can anyone oppose it?

http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2012/01/05/greenwalds_identity_crisis

For me, Greenwald clarified his anti-progressive beliefs a few weeks later when he debated Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now in his support of the Citizens United decision.

The main point that Greenwald felt he made was:

It is clear that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech… The clear Constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment in allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seem very problematic.

In other words, Glenn Greenwald had no problem accepting corporations (or for that matter any organized group of people or farm animals) as being “persons,” a view that I did, and do, find impossible for any rational progressive person to accept.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)

10. Just as many of us find being ok with spying

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:04 PM

Jun 2013

on your own citizens impossible for a rational progressive person to accept, yet a whole bunch of people not only accept it, but demand others accept it.

More shooting the messenger to defend the indefensible.

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

12. Question about the status of corporations.

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 04:57 PM

Jun 2013

You write:

In other words, Glenn Greenwald had no problem accepting corporations (or for that matter any organized group of people or farm animals) as being “persons,” a view that I did, and do, find impossible for any rational progressive person to accept.

Hypothetical for you: In 2017, the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress pass, and President Cruz signs into law, a bill stating that no corporation that publishes a newspaper or magazine may include in that publication any material that criticizes the government of the United States or any of the policies of that government. Natural persons (human beings) who, individually or with other human partners, own a publication, and therefore don't use the corporate form, are unaffected.

The ACLU and Glenn Greenwald go to court and challenge the new law as a violation of the First Amendment. They are joined by several for-profit corporations that publish major newspapers (such as The New York Times), and by some non-profit corporations, like the Sierra Club, that publish magazines for their members.

How should the court rule?

I guess in your view I'm not rational, because I think it's absolutely clear that the law would be a violation of the First Amendment -- specifically, it would violate the First Amendment rights of The New York Times Company and the Sierra Club and a lot of others.

The real problem with Citizens United was the failure to recognize that campaign spending is protected speech but is also conduct, which can be regulated. That's why prohibiting corporations from criticizing the President would violate the corporations' First Amendment rights, but prohibiting the Koch brothers (who, technically, are human beings) from making huge campaign contributions does not violate their First Amendment rights.

calimary

(81,559 posts)

9. Enthusiastically kicked, rec'd, and signed!!!

Reply to Just Saying (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 02:39 PM

Jun 2013

I do love Sherrod Brown. Glad I donated. We need guys like him in positions like this.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)

11. K&R

Reply to Just Saying (Original post)

Wed Jun 12, 2013, 03:05 PM

Jun 2013

Signed.

Reply to this discussion