[monocasa]

> Doesn't that apply to corporations as well? If you click on a random company[1], you see a notice that says

No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet.

> Are you sure that the reason why solidarity strikes are banned because union members are holding up a bunch of signs, and not say... walking off the job?

How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?

[gruez]

>No. For profit corporations can donate to PACs that are directly in support of a candidate rather than a broad swath of policy. It's a non profit versus profit distinction that creates this additional ratchet.

So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax breaks and do whatever politicking they want?

>How is that not one of the most fundamental forms of protected speech?

Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?

[monocasa]

> So make the union for-profit instead? In other words the distinction isn't corporations vs unions, it's for-profit vs non-profit. This seems.. okay? What's the alternative, that organizations can get tax breaks and do whatever politicking they want?

The alternative is neither get to do politicking rather than only those who aren't formally working for some public good.

> Walking off the job when you have an agreement not to walk off the job is "protected speech"?

Yeah, it's called a protest.

They're allowed to walk off for their own issues. It's solidarity strikes that are banned. Ie. the nature of the speech is what makes it illegal.