In response to:

Regulating Political Speech

Thomas620 Wrote: Jun 20, 2012 7:28 PM
The shareholders have an interest in what the government does to corporations. Therefore they should have a voice (they pool that voice by investing in the corporation and using the corporation to combine their voices into one that is louder. That having been said, there should be no such thing as government "granting" a "right". That is what monarchies do. Republics use representatives to make laws for the orderly operation of society, but do not grant rights. Rights pre-exist governments. They are granted by God to every human equally. So this is not about rights, it is about a voice in government's operations. That is what our representatives are supposed to do. Speak for us. Too bad many don't,.
It's presidential season, so again pundits are indignant that money is spent on politics. Spent by corporations! And rich people! Because the Supreme Court allowed that, "2012 will be a miserable year," says The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne

2012 may be miserable -- but if it is, it won't be because corporations spend on politics. And anyway, they have a right to spend.

In politics, money is speech.

The very first amendment that the Founders chose to add to the Constitution couldn't be more clear: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ... ."

Yet most people support...

Wednesday, June 19 | 03:25 AM ET
Wednesday, June 19 | 03:25 AM ET
Wednesday, June 19 | 03:25 AM ET
Wednesday, June 19 | 03:25 AM ET