Trump wants America to be like England, "where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong"

Except that the group of people in corporations aren’t equally having a voice within the entity itself. The board and CEO have more sway over the political contributions they make than the workers (generally speaking). it also means that someone who is probably already extremely rich and political connected (again, the board and CEO) get their own voices as private citizens and their voices as the public faces of corporations.


Hey. Stop that.


Corporations are people the same way Soylent Green is people. That is, people are ground up and used for the benefit of someone else.


Sort of like what happened to Gawker?

That was due to a lawsuit filed by a billionaire (as a personal vendetta) and professional wrestler. Other than operating the court the suit was brought in, the state really had little to do with that situation.


That’s why he was disgraced and former :smiley:

I’m not sure what you mean by “people in corporations”. The people who have control over corporations are it’s owners or members depending on the corporate construction although many of them may choose not to exercise their influence directly. Political contributions by a corporation are not an issue here as Citizens United vs. FEC did not affect the Federal ban on corporate political contributions. I don’t see how the number of outlets a person can use to express political views is relevant. For example, I could express my own view on the regulation of pollution directly, by contributing to an corporation which supports my view, such as The Sierra Club, by writing a letter to the editor which is published by The New York Times, or many other ways. Should I be limited to just expressing my political views directly from myself?

1 Like

Fair enough, but I think the problem comes when it comes to the notion that $$$ itself is speech, yeah? That means some people have more speech to throw around than others. And it’s totally true that we as individuals can give to organizations that can give our views a larger platform (such as the Sierra Club). But that doesn’t mean that $$$ in politics isn’t problematic, as it still is privilege those with more money in general.

The argument you seem to be making is that together, using money as a tool, we can have a louder voice collectively. But there is also the problem of not knowing where money is coming from for a political cause/organization. I do think there is a world of difference between the Sierra Club working as a louder voice for a particular political cause and a for-profit corporation which is decidedly not. Should BP get a loud a voice as an environmental organization on these issues, as they have a direct financial stake in a product shown to be harmful to the environment. Do you believe that the Sierra Club has the same access to the halls of power that oil companies have? This is true, even though, as you note, there is still a ban on direct corporate contributions.

So, I’ll concede that money in the political process might not always be a means of asserting corporate power in a way that’s detrimental to public discourse. The problem is more complex than that. What happens when corporations, for example, control much of the media landscape?

[ETA] I think this article on the Center for Public Integrity why the Citizen united decision was problematic:

It privileges some people’s speech over others, because some people already have a large pool of cash to draw from for making politically oriented media engagements. An organization like in your example, the Sierra Club is likely going to play it straight, because they depend on their moral integrity with their donors (to keep funds rolling in for their advocacy). But not everyone will, and will stretch the law to the limit, because they can afford to do so (they are flush in cash and lawyers). The problem is access to the halls of power and to the media, in a way you or I as ordinary citizens don’t have.


[quote=“CLamb, post:49, topic:88030”]
Political contributions by a corporation are not an issue here as Citizens United vs. FEC did not affect the Federal ban on corporate political contributions.
[/quote]This is pedantic to an extreme.


That is an important point to remember, but that doesn’t mean that the decision didn’t open other doors for corporate funds in elections in new ways.


Out of all possible things I could say about this topic, let me just drop in to express my concern that maybe we’re being unfair to this guy who I don’t agree with at all.

And to inadvertently reveal my interest in certain other subjects.


In my case you didn’t misquote me, you simply claimed I said one thing when I said something completely different. But aside from that Trump’s own words are, “Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.”

This is at best inaccurate since it is possible to sue for libel in this country. It’s just difficult to make a case when he’s on tape bragging about what he claims he’s never done.

And for the record I don’t think Trump wants to bring back slavery, but he’s got a terrible record when it comes to civil rights, a history of appealing to racists, and a running mate who, as governor, signed legislation targeting the rights of a minority.


1 Like

The title of the article has some words in quotes, followed by “says Millionaire Donald Trump”. He did not say the words attributed to him. It is not a show of any sort of support for his policies to believe that accurately quoting people is an important part of journalism.

I wasn’t defending the headline and quoted Trump’s own words. If you’re going to reply to me I wish you’d do me the courtesy of replying to what I’ve said.


Thank you. I’ve updated the post with a correction and a new headline (Trump wants America to be like England, “where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong”)


I am having browser problems. I did not mean to reply to you. Sorry.

No, you are in love with UK libel law. Everyone already knows. Amber saw in your locker one time and she said it was full of Carter-Ruck posters and super injunctions you made in MS Paint.


Ah, Libertarians. Only concerned about corporate freedoms.


Small shareholders really have almost no voice at all.