I think people should be able to spend money on influencing politics, and that people when they group together voluntarily, whether as a union, a church, a charity or a corporation, do not suddenly lose that right. In other words, the political rights of aggregations of people are merely the aggregate of the political rights of the owners of that corporation.
In any case, as individuals most people align politically with what serves their individual interests, and in voluntary aggregations they would typically align their political spending with what also serves their aggregate interest. So I think the question, as it is posed, presents a false dichotomy.
Read other related questions on Quora:
- Why does free speech allow these kind of hateful attacks on people of color?
- If legally, corporations are people, too, then should they be allowed to vote? If not, should they be allowed to influence elections by monetary contributions?
- Politics of the United States of America: Has the US Supreme Court classified money as speech and corporations as people?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2efu5f4
No comments:
Post a Comment