A recent Supreme Court ruling overturned a long standing precedent that limited political contributions by corporations, and granted corporation a right to make unlimited political contribution, as a right of free speech. LOL This decision is an obvious error in reason.
A corporation is run by its CEO as to corporate policy, focus, employment, and all matters of management. It is the CEO, and board of directors, who have the decision regarding political contributions, both as to amount and political party to be benefited. Denying a corporation to contribute to one party or another does not violate any freedoms of speech. A corporation cannot speak, but by the voices of its management, especially the CEO who would have most influence. Giving a corporation, who speaks through its CEO, a right to make unlimited contributions, and also allow the CEO to contribute individually is a duplication, just as much as allowing both the CEO and the corporation to cast a vote at the ballot box. Its a kind of double voting. The CEO and corporation have a symbiotic oneness; both being dependent on the other. To make matter worse, a corporation can be much more generous in its political contributions, than the individual people who work for it; because, in general a corporation must earn above and beyond what it pay to its employees and shareholders. This means the corporations have a much greater proportional influence politically than individuals, who on average contribute perhaps one 1/1,000 or 1/10,000 as much as the multimillion dollar contributions made by CEO for their corporations. Regards, LelandJ On 12/04/2010 01:23 PM, Leland Jackson wrote: > The jury was brought and paid for by wealthy individuals and > corporations. This resulted in the best congress money can buy, LOL, > and the inevitable extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone, > including the wealthy that don't really need them, which will in turn > aggravate the deficit and national debt. > > The wealthy will eventually ask the middle class, including you, and > future generations to pay the debt, acting through their congressional > proxies to pass the required legislation. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > On 12/04/2010 01:00 PM, Michael Madigan wrote: >> The jury spoke on November second and the Kenyan was found guilty on all >> counts. >> >> --- On Sat, 12/4/10, Leland Jackson<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Leland Jackson<[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [OT] Kenyan man-child drives unemployment to 9.8% >>> To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> >>> Date: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 11:46 AM >>> Trying to sell your proximate cause >>> absurdity to a jury that had the >>> real facts, which are freely available, wouldn't fly. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> >>> On 12/04/2010 12:34 AM, Michael Madigan wrote: >>>> It's no coincidence that the economy started to fail >>> as soon as Democrats took both houses of Congress in >>> November 2006. >>>> --- On Fri, 12/3/10, Michael Oke, II<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> From: Michael Oke, II<[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [OT] Kenyan man-child drives >>> unemployment to 9.8% >>>>> To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Friday, December 3, 2010, 12:22 PM >>>>> Let's spread the blame around to >>>>> where it is deserved. The dumocrat >>>>> controlled Congress deserves their fair share. >>>>> >>>>> ::michael >>>>> On Dec 3, 2010 8:42 AM, "Michael Madigan"<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Excellent job! >>>>>> >>>>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
