Re: what?

Scott — 9/27/2002 8:39:40 AM (archived)

Robert,

Where you said:< i > Nowhere does the Constitution grant any rights to corporations, unions, trade associations, or any other "abstract entity". Further, it's hard to imagine the Founders intending to introduce a third force--accumulations of clout, as you put it so nicely--to interfere with and distort the direct relationship between the people and our government.

You do seem to imply that an association of people...ie. union, club, whatever... Can be stopped from expressing a political opinion.

The whole idea behind a union is for a group of otherwise powerless workers to join together and "Unionize" their powerbase.

The union members I know will be shocked to learn that their union powerbase cannot endorse candidates or any issue deemed political by the new law.

Or maybe I am just misunderstanding your original post...

I've been known to do so :)

Scott

The whole thread (37 posts)

First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 6:32:51 PM
- Re: Well . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 7:08:27 PM
  - Well said - Robert - 9/27/2002 7:42:26 PM
    - so a Union doesn't have the right to exist? - Scott - 9/27/2002 7:50:26 PM
      - Re: The issue . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 8:42:56 AM
        
        i wonder when the ACLU or other special interest group will break this law - Scott - 9/27/2002 8:50:25 AM
        
        Re: The emphasis is on "special interest groups". - Marcia - 9/27/2002 9:20:17 AM
      - what? - Robert - 9/27/2002 8:02:37 AM
        
        Re: what? - Scott - 9/27/2002 8:39:40 AM
  - I can't believe you said that... - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 7:30:22 PM
    - Re: I can't believe you said that... - Robert - 9/27/2002 7:53:08 PM
    - They can assemble all they want - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 7:50:41 PM
      - Re: They can assemble all they want - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 9:06:26 AM
        
        Re: Excuse me, Tom . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 10:41:25 AM
        
        Re: Excuse me, Tom . . . - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 10:53:32 AM
        
        Re: I can sorta see the problem . . . - D. spires - 9/27/2002 11:11:47 AM
        
        Re: I see it now (after debating the issue at home :) - Marcia - 9/27/2002 11:38:26 AM
        
        Involuntary exposure - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 12:03:54 PM
        
        Re: Involuntary exposure - Marcia - 9/27/2002 12:39:29 PM
        
        Re: Networks and radio stations, ads in general. - Marcia - 9/27/2002 1:05:30 PM
        
        Re: Should . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 1:11:26 PM
        
        Re: But , , , - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 11:58:41 AM
        
        I'm with you on this one... - Scott - 9/27/2002 10:36:32 AM
        
        The special interest group - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 11:39:17 AM
        
        Re: I see . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 11:53:14 AM
        
        Re: Seems to me . . . - D. spires - 9/27/2002 10:58:11 AM
    - Re: What I mean (and not backpedaling at all) . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 8:53:04 AM
- "What if the vote had gone the other way?" - alcaray - 9/27/2002 7:05:55 PM
  - The Supreme Court will kill this law anyway. - Scott - 9/27/2002 7:43:49 PM
    - Re: The Supreme Court will kill this law anyway. - Tony - 9/27/2002 8:15:59 AM
      - Re: The Supreme Court will kill this law anyway. - Scott - 9/27/2002 8:43:39 AM
        
        The Republicans on the FEC blocked the exceptions - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 2:00:41 PM
- Fundamental to conservatism. - Bowser - 9/27/2002 2:03:09 PM
  - Re: Fundamental to conservatism. - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 4:04:44 PM
    - Puh-leese!! - Bowser - 9/27/2002 5:26:06 PM
- Which animals are more equal than others... - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 1:04:53 PM
- Re: First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying - Marcia - 9/27/2002 8:22:36 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (37 posts)