Re: Apparently, he did not get the Memo...

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm undecided about limits on legal fictions such as corporations - I
> don't believe the 1st amendment was ever meant to apply to anything but real,
> indivdual, persons.  I'm trending towards the belief, (if I'm not already
> there), that corporations and other similar entites are granted personhood
> status at the expense of, (if not intent then in effect), us real individual
> persons.

Jumping topics a little bit. :-)  I share your concern with corporate
personhood.  I think there are quite a few psychotic, fraudulent, and
negligent corporations that would have had their charters revoked,
their capital seized, and their executives held criminally liable if
our legal system were a bit more just.

Nonetheless, I don't see how you can restrict freedom of speech on any
group, be it S-Corp, LLC, or merely a bunch of friends working
together in the evenings, without also restricting freedom of speech
for the individuals within said group (and possibly also freedom of
association and freedom of the press).  Additionally, I'd rather
corporations spend lots of money lobbying voters than spend
considerably less money lobbying Congressmen (which tends to have a
better ROI anyway).  Fighting political corruption by restricting free
speech of groups is like using a bazooka to eradicate the bubonic
plague... and missing; overbearing and ineffective.  IMHO.  :-)

-- 
Nick

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot