Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically stop a person from authorizing that check?
Disregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of a corporation, the action is a result of the corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will (were it not so, the individual would have misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).
That’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so.
And yes, the individual risks acting in ways their company doesn’t like, but they can do things to lower that risk, such as asking other individuals within that corporation what their desired action is.
But it’s still individuals acting, so they’re afforded all of the protections the Constitution provides.
A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.
Honestly anyhow I have a distaste for US right of speech and its enormously broad interpretation, so I'm not too interested in debating its applications.
(I support the right to express your opinions, at most)
I also think that at the base of most US problems there's the freedom to corrupt politicians ("lobbying"), so, yeah, I really don't care much how legal it is
But you seem utterly incapable of justifying those beliefs to others...
Your beliefs are worthless to everyone else if you can't explain them, and no all you've done so far is declare what you believe to be correct, and have crumpled at the slightest sign of resistance. That demonstrates the weakness of your belief.