Skip to main content

View Diary: Five Montana Supreme Court justices vs. Citizens United (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... you believe the First Amendment allows the government to ban all political advertising?

    •  Regardless of whether CU was the 'right' decision (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      At an absolute minimum, corporations should be required to disclose how much of their funds are going to political activities, and to which PACs, etc., they're going to.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 08:59:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its compeled speech... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samer, brein

        all publicly traded corporations should be utterly banned from political speech. Every time a corp speaks that I hold stock in due to be forced to own stock in them via 401K or whatever, they are effect using my money via my partial ownership in them to compel me to speak against myself.

        at the very least they should be required to ask each shareholder whether they want a bit of their dividend spent on political uses or returned to them via the dividend so that no one is forced to speak against themselves via their money.

        •  liminousone11 - on what basis? (0+ / 0-)

          On what possible legal or accounting basis should a company be required to ask each shareholder for an approval to make an independent political expenditure? There is a well developed body of law on when shareholders must vote for a corporation to take a specific action, but those are issuing new shares, or expanding the option pool, or selling or merging the company. On the accounting side if the expenditures are material they must be disclosed, but approval isn't ever required for expenditures (except for very rare circumstances).  The officers and directors are still bound by the same business judgement rules to make the decision to spend money on a political effort in a manner that is in the best interest of the company. As a shareholder why do you think the expenditure would not also be in your interest? The notion that shareholder approval should be required for a $1 million political expense, but not the $100 new facility makes no sense from a legal or accounting perspective. Until these political expenses become material, when they will be disclosed under current accounting rules, there is no need to disclose them, and certainly no basis for requiring shareholder approval.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 08:34:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Advertising is not speech (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not sure what you're not following.  You have the right to say anything you want.  You do not have the right to transmit whatever you want on public airwaves or into mass media markets without regulation by society.

      Just like you don't have the right to run pictures of your wife in a gangbang with a bunch of football players in the New York Times without regulation taking place.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site