Werther gives an analysis of the US Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to fund campaigns for or against politicians. Most seem to be very surprised by this decision, it has also led me to wonder if the founders would have been happy with the East India Shipping Company being involved with US elections? Or if a company is incorporated in the US over 35 years ago, can it then run for president? Will the Roberts court decide that the Second Amendment also applies to corporations? The Goldman Sachs militia will then roam the streets of DC...
The Supreme Court's wholesale rejection of a century of statutes regulating corporate contributions to political campaigns is a breath of fresh air in a hypocrisy-ridden political process. It certainly ought to sweep away the tendency of timid rationalizers to deny the existence of corporate domination and control of every aspect of governance in the United States — a fact which should have already been made abundantly clear by the terms of the bank bailout and the health care travesty.
• Corporations are naturally endowed with personhood (the a priori assumption, and one that sounds suspiciously like parallel reasoning on abortion);• Corporations accordingly enjoy the rights of natural persons, including free speech (deduction);• Money ≡ speech (the logical leap, which can be made to parse with enough Platonic logic-chopping);• Ergo, corporate spending is an exercise in free speech not delimited in dollar amounts by the First Amendment (the syllogism is complete).