>spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.

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.

▲

tines 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."

▲

gruez 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially.

You realize republicans can make the same argument to bash unions?

▲

tines 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, I don't have a problem with unions being restricted from political donations either.

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.

▲

monocasa 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They already have. Unions generally can't donate to political campaigns, 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.

▲

gruez 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Unions generally can't donate to political campaigns

???

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.

▲

monocasa 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> ???

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.

▲

gruez 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>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.

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?

▲

monocasa 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says

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?

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>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.

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"?

	▲	monocasa 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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? 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.