From wikipedia:
>The majority also held that the First Amendment's free press clause protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the speaker's identity. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment.
In other words, corporations have the right to spend money for political purposes not because of corporate personhood or "corporations are people too", it's because first amendment protections apply to associations of people. This covers corporations, but also includes other groups like trade unions.
You realize republicans can make the same argument to bash unions?
???
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/carpenters-joiners-union/su...
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/service-employees-internati...
>and can't do things like strike in solidarity with other unions which would be pretty clearly be speech if we're counting corporate donations to political campaigns as speech.
Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations.
It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign.
> Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations.
Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.
Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says
>NOTE: Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Figures on this page include contributions and spending by affiliates.
and indeed, I don't see any candidates. This more or less matches the recipients list for unions.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/citadel-llc/summary?id=D000...
> Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.
Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding up a bunch of signs, and not say... walking off the job?
No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet.
> Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding up a bunch of signs, and not say... walking off the job?
How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?
So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax breaks and do whatever politicking they want?
>How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?
Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?
The alternative is neither get to do politicking rather than only those who aren't formally working for some public good.
> Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?
Yeah, it's called a protest.
They're allowed to walk off for their own issues. It's solidarity strikes that are banned. Ie. the nature of the speech is what makes it illegal.
Just like corporations can be regulated for monopoly (which by the logic that "corporations, as mere groups of people, have all the same rights as people" should be unregulatable because individuals have the right to assemble), we can regulate them for other things, without contradiction.
How could corporations voting not dilute the human votes by the very nature and reason of voting in the first place?
Because you're being misled (i.e. lied to) about the actual nature of the situation.
This is a snooty vacation town shithole. Non-resident landowners have been allowed to vote here since day 1. The purpose of incorporating as a town is/was essentially to have a town that's run by business. Think like City of Industry CA fucked the Hamptons, this is the kid.
Back when they did this in 1950-whatever this worked fine. All the land was owned by McScumbag A, McScumbag B and McScumbag C who invariably lived in DC, NYC, etc, etc. Back then people owned vacation cottages, businesses, motels, etc, etc, in their own name. So, as everything moved to LLCs and whatnot over the years the scummy developers and investors slowly lost influence to the "filthy townies" or whatever and so in 2000-whatever they amended their constitution to allow their LLCs to vote and now, here we are litigating the implications in court.
Yeah, it's stupid on like a dozen different levels but this isn't the "random normal-ish town goes apeshit and decide to let DuPont vote" it's being cast as. This town was already apeshit, it's just being fought about in court.
And INB4 anyone puts words in my mouth, no I don't support the ruling.
Which is fine, they only get one vote.
But they can also divide a piece of land into small plots, make a bunch of shell companies, each one owning a small piece of land, and vote using that.
Isn't this just on Fenwick Island? And the state would have to approve the (possibly suspicious) creation of numerous shell companies for this purpose.
And now you get to "nobody at all" when effectively nothing happens to the leaders the instant the need to bear accountability
> plus this firewall makes it so people will be more willing to build businesses.
Doubt.
"We can direct the corporation we own to dump raw sewage into rivers but you can't hold us accountable personally for that decision" is an absolutely messed way to run things
"Corporate personhood" is a legal concept where how person-like a corporation is can be defined in whichever way is convenient to how we want the law to operate.