Citizens United outcry

[Quantum Windbag]

It still isn't. MoveOn.org does not have the right to vote, so it is obviously not a citizen. Matter of fact, neither is any other corporation. Do you have a brain, or do you just string soundbites together in the hope that no one notices how stupid you actually are?

Man, you really are a windbag of quantum proportions, are you?

Pay attention, genius: DAVE brought up MoveOn.org as some sort of lame attempt to compare it to corporations that the Citizens United case ruling deemed were citizens in regards to donation to campaign commercials.

He was wrong, as I explained. NOTHING that I wrote stated anything about "right to vote"....seems YOU, QW, are just beside yourself with your inability to get passed me on this issue....get your act together, you silly Windbag.

Prior to the Citizen's United ruling, was MoveOn.org recognized as a US citizen with all subsequent rights granted by the Constitution?

Nope.

As I said, they still are not. They do not have the right to vote.

Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

There is no constitutional difference between a commercial corporation and a 527.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

This is where you manage to depart from reality, and end up looking even dumber than usual. You rant and rave about Citizens United and the apocalypse that is coming as a result and you totally miss the point that the 2004 decision that allowed the FEC to prohibit campaign adds naming candidates was overturned.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

Do you have a problem with the Supreme court decisions about everything that is not mentioned in the Constitution, or are you just trying to appropriate what you think is a conservative argument in an attempt to outwit people that are marginally less intelligent than the average bear? Since you have already proven that you are, at best, their intellectual equals I doubt you will succeed, but I am curious as to your intent.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

Yes. I think Freedom of Speech is essential for our Republic to thrive.

 

[taichiliberal]

It still isn't. MoveOn.org does not have the right to vote, so it is obviously not a citizen. Matter of fact, neither is any other corporation. Do you have a brain, or do you just string soundbites together in the hope that no one notices how stupid you actually are?

Man, you really are a windbag of quantum proportions, are you?

Pay attention, genius: DAVE brought up MoveOn.org as some sort of lame attempt to compare it to corporations that the Citizens United case ruling deemed were citizens in regards to donation to campaign commercials.

He was wrong, as I explained. NOTHING that I wrote stated anything about "right to vote"....seems YOU, QW, are just beside yourself with your inability to get passed me on this issue....get your act together, you silly Windbag.

As I said, they still are not. They do not have the right to vote.

For Quantum Windbag, you sure have a limited cognitive reasoning capacity. FYI, people here on work VISA's, people seeking political asylum and immigrants pending the 7 year wait for citizenship have some rights ...but voting is not one of them. Look it up if you don't believe me. So again for the intellectually dense and insipidly stubborn, the Citizens United decision put corporations and unions on par with citizens regarding contributions to political campaign commericals and such.

Quote: Originally Posted by taichiliberal
Is MoveOn.org a commercial corporation?

Nope.

There is no constitutional difference between a commercial corporation and a 527.

Who said there was? I didn't. I also didn't try to put a non-profit political analysis/advocacy organization on par with a commercial corporation (domestic/international) by insinuating that a 527 group category is similar to what the Citizen's United decision wrought....that's you and Dave. And since Citizens United DOES NOT address itself to 527's (why should they, as it's a separate issue already regulated), your assertion is irrelevent.

Weren't the Swiftboaters a 527 group at one point?

Yep, and folk like YOU Dave defended the Swiftboaters to the death.

527 groups can't put money directly to advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, if the do the FEC gets after them, as they ruled in 2004.

This is where you manage to depart from reality, and end up looking even dumber than usual. You rant and rave about Citizens United and the apocalypse that is coming as a result and you totally miss the point that the 2004 decision that allowed the FEC to prohibit campaign adds naming candidates was overturned.


Not quite, my big windbag friend...you're only partially correct here...as this case points out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01fec.html

There's a fine line between a 527 and a PAC....regarding on how much money is put in to elect/defeat a candidate. AND NOTE THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY RULING THAT TREATED A 527 AS AN INDIVIDUAL DONATOR.....UNLIKE THE CITIZEN'S UNITED DECISION DOES FOR CORPORATIONS.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

Do you have a problem with the Supreme court decisions about everything that is not mentioned in the Constitution, Did I say I did, you pointless Windbag? Nope! or are you just trying to appropriate what you think is a conservative argument in an attempt to outwit people that are marginally less intelligent than the average bear? Seeing that you have a penchant for creating these fantasies despite the actual facts, information and statements presented in a post, I dare say you've already answered your own question. Since you have already proven that you are, at best, their intellectual equals I doubt you will succeed, but I am curious as to your intent.

As I've demonstrated above, you're not "curious"...you're just a quantum windbag. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

Yes. I think Freedom of Speech is essential for our Republic to thrive.

Exactly who's "Freedom of Speech" was being denied prior to the Citizen's United decision?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Man, you really are a windbag of quantum proportions, are you?

Pay attention, genius: DAVE brought up MoveOn.org as some sort of lame attempt to compare it to corporations that the Citizens United case ruling deemed were citizens in regards to donation to campaign commercials.

He was wrong, as I explained. NOTHING that I wrote stated anything about "right to vote"....seems YOU, QW, are just beside yourself with your inability to get passed me on this issue....get your act together, you silly Windbag.

As I said, they still are not. They do not have the right to vote.

For Quantum Windbag, you sure have a limited cognitive reasoning capacity. FYI, people here on work VISA's, people seeking political asylum and immigrants pending the 7 year wait for citizenship have some rights ...but voting is not one of them. Look it up if you don't believe me. So again for the intellectually dense and insipidly stubborn, the Citizens United decision put corporations and unions on par with citizens regarding contributions to political campaign commericals and such.



There is no constitutional difference between a commercial corporation and a 527.

Who said there was? I didn't. I also didn't try to put a non-profit political analysis/advocacy organization on par with a commercial corporation (domestic/international) by insinuating that a 527 group category is similar to what the Citizen's United decision wrought....that's you and Dave. And since Citizens United DOES NOT address itself to 527's (why should they, as it's a separate issue already regulated), your assertion is irrelevent.



This is where you manage to depart from reality, and end up looking even dumber than usual. You rant and rave about Citizens United and the apocalypse that is coming as a result and you totally miss the point that the 2004 decision that allowed the FEC to prohibit campaign adds naming candidates was overturned.


Not quite, my big windbag friend...you're only partially correct here...as this case points out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01fec.html

There's a fine line between a 527 and a PAC....regarding on how much money is put in to elect/defeat a candidate. AND NOTE THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY RULING THAT TREATED A 527 AS AN INDIVIDUAL DONATOR.....UNLIKE THE CITIZEN'S UNITED DECISION DOES FOR CORPORATIONS.

So again Dave, the Citizens United decision oversteps the Constitution that does NOT mention corporations nor gives them rights as an individual US citizen..... but does regulate commerce.

Do you have a problem with the Supreme court decisions about everything that is not mentioned in the Constitution, Did I say I did, you pointless Windbag? Nope! or are you just trying to appropriate what you think is a conservative argument in an attempt to outwit people that are marginally less intelligent than the average bear? Seeing that you have a penchant for creating these fantasies despite the actual facts, information and statements presented in a post, I dare say you've already answered your own question. Since you have already proven that you are, at best, their intellectual equals I doubt you will succeed, but I am curious as to your intent.

As I've demonstrated above, you're not "curious"...you're just a quantum windbag. Carry on.

I bet you think you refuted something.

 

[Ragnar]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

Yes. I think Freedom of Speech is essential for our Republic to thrive.

Exactly who's "Freedom of Speech" was being denied prior to the Citizen's United decision?

Citizens United's.

 

[taichiliberal]

As I said, they still are not. They do not have the right to vote.

For Quantum Windbag, you sure have a limited cognitive reasoning capacity. FYI, people here on work VISA's, people seeking political asylum and immigrants pending the 7 year wait for citizenship have some rights ...but voting is not one of them. Look it up if you don't believe me. So again for the intellectually dense and insipidly stubborn, the Citizens United decision put corporations and unions on par with citizens regarding contributions to political campaign commericals and such.



There is no constitutional difference between a commercial corporation and a 527.

Who said there was? I didn't. I also didn't try to put a non-profit political analysis/advocacy organization on par with a commercial corporation (domestic/international) by insinuating that a 527 group category is similar to what the Citizen's United decision wrought....that's you and Dave. And since Citizens United DOES NOT address itself to 527's (why should they, as it's a separate issue already regulated), your assertion is irrelevent.



This is where you manage to depart from reality, and end up looking even dumber than usual. You rant and rave about Citizens United and the apocalypse that is coming as a result and you totally miss the point that the 2004 decision that allowed the FEC to prohibit campaign adds naming candidates was overturned.


Not quite, my big windbag friend...you're only partially correct here...as this case points out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01fec.html

There's a fine line between a 527 and a PAC....regarding on how much money is put in to elect/defeat a candidate. AND NOTE THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY RULING THAT TREATED A 527 AS AN INDIVIDUAL DONATOR.....UNLIKE THE CITIZEN'S UNITED DECISION DOES FOR CORPORATIONS.



Do you have a problem with the Supreme court decisions about everything that is not mentioned in the Constitution, Did I say I did, you pointless Windbag? Nope! or are you just trying to appropriate what you think is a conservative argument in an attempt to outwit people that are marginally less intelligent than the average bear? Seeing that you have a penchant for creating these fantasies despite the actual facts, information and statements presented in a post, I dare say you've already answered your own question. Since you have already proven that you are, at best, their intellectual equals I doubt you will succeed, but I am curious as to your intent.

As I've demonstrated above, you're not "curious"...you're just a quantum windbag. Carry on.

I bet you think you refuted something.

Ahhh, the Windbag is empty!

 

[Avatar4321]

Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?

Yes. I think Freedom of Speech is essential for our Republic to thrive.

Exactly who's "Freedom of Speech" was being denied prior to the Citizen's United decision?

As was mentioned already, Citizens United. Essentially any person, or group of people that wished to criticize a candidate during an election cycle.

Seriously, I don''t understand why anyone thinks that banning political advertisements of certain people or groups isn't restricting free speech.

But like all people who dislike the decision, Im certain you haven't bothered to actually read it.

 

[Avatar4321]

As I've demonstrated above, you're not "curious"...you're just a quantum windbag. Carry on.

I bet you think you refuted something.

Ahhh, the Windbag is empty!

Don't worry. I am sure youll find something to say eventually.

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes. I think Freedom of Speech is essential for our Republic to thrive.

Exactly who's "Freedom of Speech" was being denied prior to the Citizen's United decision?

Citizens United's.

Really? Because if I remember correctly, Citizen's United wanted to advertise on TV for an Hillary movie that was from neocon point of view they were selling on cable pay for play. The movie was shown in a few theatres around the country and available on DVD and the net, but the FEC said that the advertising/pay for play was out because it violated rules regarding corporations funding political advertising for or against a particular candidate. What the SCOTUS did was exceed the case, overturning legal precedent by putting corporations on par with citizens with regards to spending on political campaigns...and raising the spending to levels few citizens could match.

 

[taichiliberal]

I bet you think you refuted something.

Ahhh, the Windbag is empty!

Don't worry. I am sure youll find something to say eventually.

Wake up, Avatar....the Windbag ran out of wind, courtesy of yours truly taking it out of his sails. I could care less if you don't agree....but would be interested if you could mount a better debate than he could. If not, see ya.

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes. I think Freedom of Speech is essential for our Republic to thrive.

Exactly who's "Freedom of Speech" was being denied prior to the Citizen's United decision?

As was mentioned already, Citizens United. Essentially any person, or group of people that wished to criticize a candidate during an election cycle.

Seriously, I don''t understand why anyone thinks that banning political advertisements of certain people or groups isn't restricting free speech.

But like all people who dislike the decision, Im certain you haven't bothered to actually read it.

I remember correctly, Citizen's United wanted to advertise on TV for an Hillary movie that was from neocon point of view they were selling on cable pay for play. The movie was shown in a few theatres around the country and available on DVD and the net, but the FEC said that the advertising/pay for play was out because it violated rules regarding corporations funding political advertising for or against a particular candidate. What the SCOTUS did was exceed the case, overturning legal precedent by putting corporations on par with citizens with regards to spending on political campaigns...and raising the spending to levels few citizens could match.

No one was "banning" political advertisments, as you incorrectly assert...just making sure the rules were abided by.

 

[Ragnar]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(c)
This Court is confronted with conflicting lines of precedent: a pre-Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post-Austin line permitting them. Neither Austin’s antidistortion rationale nor the Government’s other justifica-tions support §441b’s restrictions. Pp. 32–47.
(1)
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov-ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an associationwith a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777 (footnote omitted). This protection is inconsistent with Austin’s rationale, which is meant to prevent corporations from obtaining “ ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace’ ” by using “ ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659.

First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 49. These conclusions were re-affirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that in-creased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. ___, ___. Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Al-though currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth,and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public ’support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corpora-tions and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amend-ment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corpora-tions’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace”of ideas protected by the First Amendment. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208. Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit,both small and large, corporations. Pp. 32–40.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly who's "Freedom of Speech" was being denied prior to the Citizen's United decision?

As was mentioned already, Citizens United. Essentially any person, or group of people that wished to criticize a candidate during an election cycle.

Seriously, I don''t understand why anyone thinks that banning political advertisements of certain people or groups isn't restricting free speech.

But like all people who dislike the decision, Im certain you haven't bothered to actually read it.

I remember correctly, Citizen's United wanted to advertise on TV for an Hillary movie that was from neocon point of view they were selling on cable pay for play. The movie was shown in a few theatres around the country and available on DVD and the net, but the FEC said that the advertising/pay for play was out because it violated rules regarding corporations funding political advertising for or against a particular candidate. What the SCOTUS did was exceed the case, overturning legal precedent by putting corporations on par with citizens with regards to spending on political campaigns...and raising the spending to levels few citizens could match.

No one was "banning" political advertisments, as you incorrectly assert...just making sure the rules were abided by.

Wow.

The rules banned political advertisements that mentioned specific candidates by name 90 days before a general election, and 60 days before a primary, unless they were made by an actual candidate. Please explain to me how that is not banning a political advertisement, unconstitutionally restricting speech based on its content, and how allowing people to make this type of speech somehow puts a corporation on a par with citizens.

 

[taichiliberal]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

(c)
This Court is confronted with conflicting lines of precedent: a pre-Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post-Austin line permitting them. Neither Austin’s antidistortion rationale nor the Government’s other justifica-tions support §441b’s restrictions. Pp. 32–47.
(1)
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov-ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an associationwith a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777 (footnote omitted). This protection is inconsistent with Austin’s rationale, which is meant to prevent corporations from obtaining “ ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace’ ” by using “ ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659.

First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 49. These conclusions were re-affirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that in-creased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. ___, ___. Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Al-though currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth,and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public ’support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corpora-tions and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amend-ment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corpora-tions’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace”of ideas protected by the First Amendment. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208. Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit,both small and large, corporations. Pp. 32–40.

Rights Corporations Citizens

Vote No Yes
Elected to Public Office No Yes
Serve as judges No Yes
Appointed to Cabinet Positions No Yes
Serve Jury Duty No Yes
Donate to Political Candidates No Yes
Receive Social Security Payments No Yes
Serve as witnesses No Yes
Notary Public No Yes
Serve in the Military No Yes
Unlimited campaign donation No No
Unlimited political spending Yes Yes


It all started with a US Supreme Court ruling in 1886 resulting from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and the ensuing twisting, by a court reporter, of a statement made by Supreme Court Chief Justice Morris R. Waite before opening arguments even began.

“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

This was later inserted as a header note into the final opinion, in a different verbiage, by the court reporter even though the 14th amendment was not even a consideration in the ruling.

“The Defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in Section 1 of the 14 Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.”

1886 | Liberty Scorned

 

[taichiliberal]

As was mentioned already, Citizens United. Essentially any person, or group of people that wished to criticize a candidate during an election cycle.

Seriously, I don''t understand why anyone thinks that banning political advertisements of certain people or groups isn't restricting free speech.

But like all people who dislike the decision, Im certain you haven't bothered to actually read it.

I remember correctly, Citizen's United wanted to advertise on TV for an Hillary movie that was from neocon point of view they were selling on cable pay for play. The movie was shown in a few theatres around the country and available on DVD and the net, but the FEC said that the advertising/pay for play was out because it violated rules regarding corporations funding political advertising for or against a particular candidate. What the SCOTUS did was exceed the case, overturning legal precedent by putting corporations on par with citizens with regards to spending on political campaigns...and raising the spending to levels few citizens could match.

No one was "banning" political advertisments, as you incorrectly assert...just making sure the rules were abided by.

Wow.

The rules banned political advertisements that mentioned specific candidates by name 90 days before a general election, and 60 days before a primary, unless they were made by an actual candidate. Please explain to me how that is not banning a political advertisement, unconstitutionally restricting speech based on its content, and how allowing people to make this type of speech somehow puts a corporation on a par with citizens.

Wow.....You can make political advertisements on the issues and instruct people as to why they should vote on those issues...or visa versa....without naming a candidate. It's done all the time. And those are combined with advertisements that are made by/endorsed by the actual candidate.

Got that, bunky?

 

[Ragnar]

I remember correctly, Citizen's United wanted to advertise on TV for an Hillary movie that was from neocon point of view they were selling on cable pay for play. The movie was shown in a few theatres around the country and available on DVD and the net, but the FEC said that the advertising/pay for play was out because it violated rules regarding corporations funding political advertising for or against a particular candidate. What the SCOTUS did was exceed the case, overturning legal precedent by putting corporations on par with citizens with regards to spending on political campaigns...and raising the spending to levels few citizens could match.

No one was "banning" political advertisments, as you incorrectly assert...just making sure the rules were abided by.

Wow.

The rules banned political advertisements that mentioned specific candidates by name 90 days before a general election, and 60 days before a primary, unless they were made by an actual candidate. Please explain to me how that is not banning a political advertisement, unconstitutionally restricting speech based on its content, and how allowing people to make this type of speech somehow puts a corporation on a par with citizens.

Wow.....You can make political advertisements on the issues and instruct people as to why they should vote on those issues...or visa versa....without naming a candidate. It's done all the time. And those are combined with advertisements that are made by/endorsed by the actual candidate.

Got that, bunky?

Or you could have free speech and say what you want, when you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I remember correctly, Citizen's United wanted to advertise on TV for an Hillary movie that was from neocon point of view they were selling on cable pay for play. The movie was shown in a few theatres around the country and available on DVD and the net, but the FEC said that the advertising/pay for play was out because it violated rules regarding corporations funding political advertising for or against a particular candidate. What the SCOTUS did was exceed the case, overturning legal precedent by putting corporations on par with citizens with regards to spending on political campaigns...and raising the spending to levels few citizens could match.

No one was "banning" political advertisments, as you incorrectly assert...just making sure the rules were abided by.

Wow.

The rules banned political advertisements that mentioned specific candidates by name 90 days before a general election, and 60 days before a primary, unless they were made by an actual candidate. Please explain to me how that is not banning a political advertisement, unconstitutionally restricting speech based on its content, and how allowing people to make this type of speech somehow puts a corporation on a par with citizens.

Wow.....You can make political advertisements on the issues and instruct people as to why they should vote on those issues...or visa versa....without naming a candidate. It's done all the time. And those are combined with advertisements that are made by/endorsed by the actual candidate.

Got that, bunky?

And now you can make them naming candidates. What is your beef exactly? Are you going to stand tall and condemn American Bridges in 2012 when it attacks specific Republican candidates by name? Are you going to cry and scream because David Brock is using people from Media Matters to man this new political organization that thinks it has free speech rights just like a real person?

Or are you, as I suspect, going to think it is a good idea?

 

[snjmom]

As a stockholder, my property doesn't have any free speech rights other than those used to further its incorporation goals of building business through advertisements. I certainly don't want my dividends to be impaired by excessive spending on political matters nor do I want it competing by seeking governmental handouts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a stockholder, my property doesn't have any free speech rights other than those used to further its incorporation goals of building business through advertisements. I certainly don't want my dividends to be impaired by excessive spending on political matters nor do I want it competing by seeking governmental handouts.

As a stockholder you have every right to attend the stockholders meeting and vote for the policies that govern political spending, just like all the other stockholders do. After that, you can either accept the results, or sell your stock.