Reply #88: Abridgment of political speech at the polls is constitutional. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness [View All]

[John1956PA]

is the phrase which is the basis of the individual rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, and it is a phrase which I believe was meant to apply to individuals/persons, not necessarily to enterprises. Another way of stating my belief is that I feel that individual rights are guaranteed to the person, not necessarily to any given enterprise recognized by the law for the purpose of facilitating the ability of one or more persons to jointly engage in commerce or to interact with others persons or enterprises. Although I believe it is beneficial to allow enterprises, such as corporations, to enjoy as many rights guaranteed to persons as reasonably possible, there are certain boundaries. Corporations are not entitled to discharges in bankruptcy as individuals are. Therefore, in bankruptcy situations, corporations are not afforded "equal protection under law" which is constitutionally guaranteed to individuals. As I first stated, Congress may abridge political speech, such as campaign speech at the polls. Under the now-stricken McCain-Feingold provision, Congress abridged political speech by corporations within 30 days of primary elections and within 60 days of general elections. Individuals suffered no such abridgment. In my view, reasoning that corporations enjoy the same degree of political speech as enjoyed by individuals entails a finding of equal protection, and I believe that corporations do not have a constitutional right to equal protection as shown by the aforementioned bankruptcy-discharge example.