Comments on: A Supreme Court Divided on Citizens United http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/2010/01/28/a-supreme-court-divided-on-citizens-united/ Law, News, and Opinion Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:52:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Tracy http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/2010/01/28/a-supreme-court-divided-on-citizens-united/#comment-285 Tracy Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:50:06 +0000 http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/?p=834#comment-285 Great article. I take less issue with the use of money being a form of speech as with the idea of treating a corporation as a person or an association of persons (which usually refers to voluntary organizations/associations, not employees) for purposes of free speech. A corporation speaks through its management not through each individual. You raise an interesting point about shareholder approval. Whose speech is it really that this decision protects? And does this decision trample on the speech of the minority shareholders in a corporation who are tied to their employer's advocacy regardless of whether they agree? Great article. I take less issue with the use of money being a form of speech as with the idea of treating a corporation as a person or an association of persons (which usually refers to voluntary organizations/associations, not employees) for purposes of free speech. A corporation speaks through its management not through each individual. You raise an interesting point about shareholder approval. Whose speech is it really that this decision protects? And does this decision trample on the speech of the minority shareholders in a corporation who are tied to their employer’s advocacy regardless of whether they agree?

]]> By: Iris http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/2010/01/28/a-supreme-court-divided-on-citizens-united/#comment-215 Iris Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:46:00 +0000 http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/?p=834#comment-215 Yet another step backwards in American politics. Whatever happened to politicians as public servants? Now it boils down to who has -- or can raise -- the most money. Ideals and issues seem to matter less and less every election, on both ends of the political spectrum. It sickens me that we allow corporations the same constitutional rights as people, yet we still don't allow all people equal rights (i.e. same-sex marriage). We've completely lost touch with humanity as a nation and this judgment only perpetuates the rule of money. The sad thing is that this won't blow up in the faces of those who made the decision -- it will only harm those of us without the power and the wealth. Yet another step backwards in American politics. Whatever happened to politicians as public servants? Now it boils down to who has — or can raise — the most money. Ideals and issues seem to matter less and less every election, on both ends of the political spectrum.

It sickens me that we allow corporations the same constitutional rights as people, yet we still don’t allow all people equal rights (i.e. same-sex marriage).

We’ve completely lost touch with humanity as a nation and this judgment only perpetuates the rule of money. The sad thing is that this won’t blow up in the faces of those who made the decision — it will only harm those of us without the power and the wealth.

]]> By: Trista http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/2010/01/28/a-supreme-court-divided-on-citizens-united/#comment-207 Trista Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:47:09 +0000 http://www.legalfish.com/TheDailyTackle/?p=834#comment-207 Thank you for this very informative summary of the issue. I have a hard time seeing how this will be end up as a positive. Does the majority really believe that the founding fathers intended to extend these rights to corporations??? It feels like a very activist interpretation, which is surprising/ironic given who was in the majority. Thank you for this very informative summary of the issue. I have a hard time seeing how this will be end up as a positive. Does the majority really believe that the founding fathers intended to extend these rights to corporations??? It feels like a very activist interpretation, which is surprising/ironic given who was in the majority.

]]>