Discussion about this post

User's avatar
George Shay's avatar

The keyword there is reasonable.

If you undercut the concept of corporate personhood, you basically make corporations unable to exist. Imagine such a world: no Apple, no Microsoft, no GM, no Ford. Well, you don’t have to imagine it. All you have to do is look at the communist countries like North Korea, Cuba, and the old Soviet Union; is that what we want? I think not, but that’s what the DSA wants. That’s what Bernie Sanders wants. They want state ownership of private enterprises, which is basically theft. Corporations are entitled to protect themselves from such thieves with free speech, which is how we got to where we are today, and rightly so.

Critics of money in politics fail to realize that money from corporations and large conservative donors tends to serve as a moderating influence on the populism that would bring people like the crazy DSA contingent into government, lunatics who would eventually drive us down the road to the serfdom of communism. It’s a one-way trip. As the saying goes, you can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.

The success of DSA actually undercuts your whole thesis. These people do not have big money. They certainly don’t get it from corporations; however, they do get it from billionaires, but those apparently are good billionaires like George Soros and JB Pritzker. Where do you think they got their money from corporations? The hypocrisy is as rich as the leftist donors.

I would strongly oppose your proposed amendment. I certainly hope the most reasonable, sensible centrists would as well.

No posts

Ready for more?