[PaulDavisThe1st]

Unproven, really. I don't think I'd argue that most people think that the individuals in a company (even its CEO) have the right to influence government. But the question is whether the corporation ("are people too, my friend) itself has this right. I'm not clear that most agree with that.

[s1artibartfast]

The corporation is the primary structure for individuals to organize - from soul crushing businesses to chess clubs, environmental non-profits, or labor unition.

Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.

When framed this way, I dont think most people would agree that groups should be prevented from getting their message out.

[kennywinker]

Are there actually chess clubs that are incorporated?

Coops, unions, guilds, non-profit societies, knitting circles, meetups, etc. are all non-corporations.

> Government influence primarily consistes of sharing information with votes passing flyers on the street or running adds.

Lobbying, and superpacs are not about getting a message out - they are about spending money on ads to buy votes. That’s different from advocating for your hobby or interest.

Not to mention the asymmetry. If 20,000 grain farmers want to lobby about wheat by spending $10 each, that’s different from one man spending the same $200,000k on getting a candidate in. Or millions - e.g. elon, etc last election.

[s1artibartfast]

Interesting.i was wrong about unions. You are wrong about co-ops and non-profits, both of which are almost universally Incorporated. So much so that I've never seen a non Incorporated Co-op.

That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech.

How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes? Also where do I go to collect my vote payments? Getting the message out usually cost money. If you like some but not others, is it the content of the messaage you find disagreeable?

[kennywinker]

> That said, we could also ban informal groups from political speech.

Money is not speech. Speech is free, everybody can speak. Money lets some people amplify their speech proportional to how rich they are. Thus the rich get richer and democracy goes hungry.

> How are these things different, getting the message out versus buying votes

“Grain is good” getting your message out.

“Vote for jeff, a message from big grain” buying votes

[s1artibartfast]

So no paid speech? It would be interesting. It would give a lot of leverage to those who already own megaphones.

You could talk to your neighbor but not donate or collaborate.

[kennywinker]

Are you playing dense on purpose here? There are lots of ways forward.

E.g. Spending limits. Each person can spend up to $2000 on political speech. Individually or as part of a group, company, whatever. After that, all you’ve got is your time - go knock on doors.

Sure, $2000 is nothing to a jeff bezos, and too much to someone making $18k/year - but it levels the field so that jeffy, or the nra, or aipac, or oil and gas can’t throw their weight around in the way they do now.

There are other ways, that’d just be a return to how things were pre-citizens united

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The failure to differentiate different categories of corporation is at the heart of the error that is Citizens United.

Sure, most people would agree that the various kinds of corporations formed for the purpose of doing something other than making money should be able to play a political role.

But I do not believe that most people would agree that corporations formed for the explicit and (generally) sole purpose of making money should have this ability.