Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you believe a corporation has a right to spend its money how it wants? A corporation has a board and customers to answer to if it takes one side of an issue.
Can a corporation use its own money to put up an abortion rights billboard?
Corporation does not have Constitutional "rights", especially when it comes to the American electoral process, regardless of the candidates' platforms. The concept of "corporate personhood" is a fallacy, an aberration by the Supreme Court behaving badly(UnConstitutionally) for over a hundred years.
How a corporation spends its money to causes is another debate, not this issue (causes & elections are two different animals.) Please start a seperate thread!
like I said, even if they cut off corporate donations, they would get money from other sources. there are enough rich individuals on both sides to finance their interests. this is why I always write in candidates. I'm not about to boycott target for donations. I boycott target because target sucks, and all those stores do. fortunately, I live in an area where I can get what I need from local farms 99% of the time. no need for the cheap junk they sell at target. if I could find american made clothes, I would love it, but it's hard to do. even people like LL bean and carhart outsource now. new balance still makes like 25% of their sneakers in this country. I have a pair of made in the USA sneakers, and I wear them proudly.
But what do you think of the last barriers to corporations placing their chosen candidates in office being removed? Don't know what "other sources" could possibly compete. And the fact that this is even an issue is terrifying.
But does it have a right to put up that billboard?
Sure, anyone can rent a billboard. But it wouldn't bother, and in any case wouldnt stick its neck out on such a hot button issue as abortion. You're arguing a pointless hypothetical.
what's the difference in the target corporation giving to the candidate, vs. say, the president giving to a candidate? if they take away the right of the corporation to give, they can just give individually can't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne
But what do you think of the last barriers to corporations placing their chosen candidates in office being removed? Don't know what "other sources" could possibly compete. And the fact that this is even an issue is terrifying.
"Corporation does not have Constitutional "rights", especially when it comes to the American electoral process, regardless of the candidates' platforms. The concept of "corporate personhood" is a fallacy, an aberration by the Supreme Court behaving badly(UnConstitutionally) for over a hundred years"
Ah, the crux of it. You disagree with the court which decides what is or isn't constitutional and know better than the court. OK, much more clear now. You folks get funnier and funnier.
Corporation does not have Constitutional "rights", especially when it comes to the American electoral process, regardless of the candidates' platforms. The concept of "corporate personhood" is a fallacy, an aberration by the Supreme Court behaving badly(UnConstitutionally) for over a hundred years.
How a corporation spends its money to causes is another debate, not this issue (causes & elections are two different animals.) Please start a seperate thread!
The thread was is target people. do the people of a corporation have a right to put up a pro life billboard to support abortion rights. For the basis of the thread is the right of a corporation to advertise for political causes
"Corporation does not have Constitutional "rights", especially when it comes to the American electoral process, regardless of the candidates' platforms. The concept of "corporate personhood" is a fallacy, an aberration by the Supreme Court behaving badly(UnConstitutionally) for over a hundred years"
Ah, the crux of it. You disagree with the court which decides what is or isn't constitutional and know better than the court. OK, much more clear now. You folks get funnier and funnier.
Sure, anyone can rent a billboard. But it wouldn't bother, and in any case wouldnt stick its neck out on such a hot button issue as abortion. You're arguing a pointless hypothetical.
So a billboard is advertising and you just agreed a corporation has a right to put up a billboard in support of abortion rights. So you agree with the SC
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
