Comments on: Corporate Charity Sucks http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/ the philosophy of technology Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:46:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: fishwreck http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/#comment-33858 fishwreck Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:13:13 +0000 http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/#comment-33858 I agree completely with those limits. Except current constitutional interpretation equates money with speech and thus your proposal wouldn't pass constitutional muster -- at least not without an amendment or a completely new Supreme Court or a voluntary "accept limits in exchange for government financing" implementation (which seriously weakens adoption). Plus, somebody would have to hog-tie and gag Mitch McConnell long enough for the legislation to pass (actually, I'd like to see that done anyway). I agree completely with those limits. Except current constitutional interpretation equates money with speech and thus your proposal wouldn’t pass constitutional muster — at least not without an amendment or a completely new Supreme Court or a voluntary “accept limits in exchange for government financing” implementation (which seriously weakens adoption). Plus, somebody would have to hog-tie and gag Mitch McConnell long enough for the legislation to pass (actually, I’d like to see that done anyway).

]]> By: Jackson Miller http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/#comment-33834 Jackson Miller Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:37:34 +0000 http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/#comment-33834 And therein lies the rub. Corporations actually can't speak. Individuals can speak. When it comes to cash there is a distinction between personal and corporation (depending on how the corp is structured). So as far as I see it, there is no distinction between personal and corporate speech. There is a clear distinction between personal and corporate money. So what if campaign finance law said contributions could only come from individuals (currently must be at least 16 I think) and an individual may contribute no more than $x to a candidate. I would like a further restriction that individuals may not contribute more than $10k total to politicians. Absolutely zero dollars from entities (corporations, PACs, etc). You think anyone would pass that legislation? And therein lies the rub. Corporations actually can’t speak. Individuals can speak. When it comes to cash there is a distinction between personal and corporation (depending on how the corp is structured).

So as far as I see it, there is no distinction between personal and corporate speech. There is a clear distinction between personal and corporate money.

So what if campaign finance law said contributions could only come from individuals (currently must be at least 16 I think) and an individual may contribute no more than $x to a candidate. I would like a further restriction that individuals may not contribute more than $10k total to politicians. Absolutely zero dollars from entities (corporations, PACs, etc).

You think anyone would pass that legislation?

]]> By: fishwreck http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/#comment-33831 fishwreck Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:13:36 +0000 http://jaxn.org/article/2008/01/17/corporate-charity-sucks/#comment-33831 I have no idea what the folks at Emma are thinking either (maybe Delaney can explicate for us), but I'm guessing it has something to do with saving a tree by sending email rather than printed mail. Good luck getting corporations out of politics. As long as commercial speech is protected nearly as much as personal speech, we'll never be rid of it. I've never understood why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to put commercial speech on the same level as personal speech (companies are somehow the same as people?) and why they think the first amendment means that. I guess it's just poorly worded: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." For whom? I'm thinking they were thinking of people, not corporations or other organizations, otherwise they wouldn't have specifically called out the press in the next phrase. I have no idea what the folks at Emma are thinking either (maybe Delaney can explicate for us), but I’m guessing it has something to do with saving a tree by sending email rather than printed mail.

Good luck getting corporations out of politics. As long as commercial speech is protected nearly as much as personal speech, we’ll never be rid of it. I’ve never understood why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to put commercial speech on the same level as personal speech (companies are somehow the same as people?) and why they think the first amendment means that.

I guess it’s just poorly worded: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” For whom? I’m thinking they were thinking of people, not corporations or other organizations, otherwise they wouldn’t have specifically called out the press in the next phrase.

]]>