DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash

**Sierabiera** · 01-23-2010, 10:37 PM

It's not speech that was being limited, Jasonik, it's bribery.

Isn't bribery already a crime?

The special interests want favors from government. Limiting the ability of government to dole out favors by restricting the scope of its powers disincentivizes corrupt corporate rent seeking. It is manifestly ironic that by obstinately championing a powerful government of nearly unlimited scope to intervene against business, those who claim to be against corporate influence in politics actually invite it with the creation of the very regulatory mechanisms whose levers corporate interests wish to grasp.

"We the People of the United States..."

[paraphrasing] ...create a bicameral legislative body having only the specific powers granted herein (and for good measure because we don't trust legislators) especially prohibited from certain actions, first of which is limiting freedom of speech or of the press.

A more fruitful line of inquiry than corporate personhood, is just how a group of people composing, financing, and printing up leaflets (blogs, TV ads, films, etc) change from free political expression into something nefarious and criminal? And how would a statute or constitutional amendment be structured to make the distinction?

01-23-2010, 10:37 PM	#15
Sierabiera Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 499 Senior Member	It's not speech that was being limited, Jasonik, it's bribery. Isn't bribery already a crime? The special interests want favors from government. Limiting the ability of government to dole out favors by restricting the scope of its powers disincentivizes corrupt corporate rent seeking. It is manifestly ironic that by obstinately championing a powerful government of nearly unlimited scope to intervene against business, those who claim to be against corporate influence in politics actually invite it with the creation of the very regulatory mechanisms whose levers corporate interests wish to grasp. "We the People of the United States..." [paraphrasing] ...create a bicameral legislative body having only the specific powers granted herein (and for good measure because we don't trust legislators) especially prohibited from certain actions, first of which is limiting freedom of speech or of the press. A more fruitful line of inquiry than corporate personhood, is just how a group of people composing, financing, and printing up leaflets (blogs, TV ads, films, etc) change from free political expression into something nefarious and criminal? And how would a statute or constitutional amendment be structured to make the distinction?
	Quote