Corporations are made of people but are themselves not people. As such, they shouldn't get freedom of speech, right to contribute to campaign, corporate personhood..etc. Only natural humans should have those things.
What about news corporations? Does the Honolulu Star-Adviser get shut down, or is it merely forbidden to publish editorials or op-eds?
I am not sure what your point is tbh. Anyway, I will just re-iterate my point here because I think it's very reasonable: corporations should only have enough rights to carry out commerce, which is their purpose of existence. Rights and freedoms such as the right to donate to political campaign and freedom of speech should be reserved for actual humans, so they can fully participate in society. I don't understand how anyone could possibly object to this.
My point is that groups of people be they in news corporations, trade unions, advocacy groups, etc, etc, have been engaging in political advocacy forever.
Just because that's how things are, it doesn't mean that's how things should be.
Please forgive me for trying to have a conversation with you.
If you like newspapers, trade unions, the Sierra Club, as I do, then it's exactly how things should be.
I forgive you. Just try harder next time.
If you want to argue about the specifics, we can do that. But I believe my overall principle should stand on its own: corporations should only be given enough to carry out commerce, and nothing more.
If you are unable to defend your principle, with anything than "it should stand on its own", then we have little to discuss.
Why should one corporation have freedom of speech and not another? Why shouldn't Tesla be able to advocate for advancing EV technologies and policies?
Says the guy who is so emotionally invested in his own "it should stand on its own" circular logic, that he has difficulty even comprehending that there are other views.
If you can convince me that the principle "corporations should only be given enough to carry out commerce" is wrong then I am willing to listen. But so far all you have done is give me a list of companies. That's not refuting my point.
We can work out how best to apply my principle later but first we need to agree that rights and freedoms are created with natural persons in mind.
That's ok. The mom and pop businesses will take over.
I'm not interested in changing your mind. Only you can do that. I am giving you concrete examples how the Hawai'i law's stifleing of ALL corporate political activity would not be a good thing. How it would in fact give MORE power to the super rich.
That's not an argument. That's a tautology.
And "we" can agree that natural people do not lose their rights and freedoms when they come together in voluntary groups.
When corporations were created through charters within the state for projects the citizens s needed done....building roads, bridges, water works, etc in their State, they were banned from using their group power for politicking or political influence, to support a candidate by it not being g a part if the legal charter.... so they would have no influence over the next charter created for the next project the state needed done.....then later politicking was banned federally thru the Tillman Act of 1907.....
And if corporations do not wish to do business in said state because of said restriction, they are free to not do business in that state. Starlink suddenly stops working when you cross the border, Amazon doesn't deliver, etc. It can happen.
Big deal. They aren't going to move to some Southern shit hole like Mississippi or Alabama.
They don't have to move, just refuse to do business within a state. Nothing can compel them to do it.
Care to bet...
