I'm not so sure......

[verges]

First, let me be VERY clear: I do not support theSCOTUS decision of a few days ago; and I do not believe that corporations should have unlimited access to our electoral process.

But, are they entitled to free speech? Here I'm not so sure. The argument seems to be that a corporation is not a single person, therefore is not entitled to the same rights vis-a-vis the First Amendment. But what about smaller entities that aren't person's? Should a local theatre group be restricted of Freedom of Speech if they are political? A local Art Museum? What about corporations whose job it is to communicate? Should Fox be silenced based on a First Amendment issue? What about MSNBC? Newspapers? It seems to me that any plug used to fill this hole, whether an amendment or other means, will have to be VERY carefully crafted to avoid creating a bigger problem by negating much of the First Amendment.

Another problem with fixing this with a Constitutional Amendment is that the Constitution states Freedoms and Rights. It shouldn't limit or restrict them. We've only done that once. And the results were disastrous, and that particular amendment had to be repealed (prohibition). Please note that this is also a good argument against Flag burning amendments and Definition of Marraige amendments.

This truly a pickle.

[last1standing]

1. It really isn't a pickle at all.

No one is attempting to curtail the freedom of speech for members of a corporation just as no one here is advocating the limitation of free speech for any of the other groups you've mentioned. However, we are stating that a corporate entity is not a human being so does not have this right. The theatre company doesn't have the right of free speech, its members do, same as any corporation and there is no limitation on them.

Does this help you out?

[kudzu22]

4. But none of the members can afford

a 30 second spot on the local TV station individually. The group as a whole can fund the ad out of profits from ticket sales. Should they be barred from doing so? Suppose there's a local candidate who wants to shut down their theater for promoting subversive and unamerican ideas? Can they buy a TV spot to say he's full of it? Before Thursday, they could not.

I'm not saying that the ruling will help the little guy in our example more than the big corps, but on principles of free speech, it is the right ruling.

[last1standing]

12. You're thinking in polar opposites.

Laws have been created to mitigate the ability of groups to unduly influence elections by flooding a constituency with advertising at the last minute. The supreme court has taken this up and ruled that it is unConstituional because corporations are real people entitled to full rights as citizens.

Yes, groups - even corporations, should be able to advertise and nothing in the laws said otherwise. Corporations had been politicking, they just had to limit the amount they could spend. However, they should not be able to buy an election with virtually unlimited spending and that is what has been struck down.

[verges]

5. Then Fox is not responsible at all

for the rantings of Beck, Hannity et al.? Theatres and Museums as producing bodies do have a responsibilities for content. And they should. Some companies are even specifically formed to present a certain POV. Are they absolved of responsibility. When a controversial show is run, it's the theatre or museum that gets picketed and held responsible by society, not the actors, or directors.

[last1standing]

13. No, FOX corporation has no responsibilities because it isn't a thinking entity.

The people who own and run FOX do have a responsibility just as do the boards of museums and members of a production company.

What is it about the difference between a human being and a financial construct that people have such a hard time understanding?

[verges]

9. But the theatre group is who is paying for the production.

As is the Corporation. Using you're reasoning (as I'm understanding it) only the actors and director of the Hilary movie, which was behind this whole mess, are responsible. The Corporation is still off the hook and can still do what they want.

[last1standing]

15. Did that movie have no owner? Did no actual person or persons front the money?

It was not the actors, unless they were the ones who paid for the movie and its distribution. A corporation didn't do that, a person or persons using a corporate construct did. Do you not get this?

[verges]

16. Yes, and that is my point.

A small theatre company has the same relationship with their productions! Are they not entitled to First Amendment protection?

[last1standing]

17. The company, no. The people who run it, yes.

Any group is a social construct, not a human being. It cannot think, react, consider, opine, bloviate or perform any other action that requires a physical brain. It is the people who control those entities who do have the right to free speech and now have an unlimited ability to use their corporate entities to broadcast propaganda without recourse.

[verges]

23. I think we're making progress...

So why should the individuals who run the corportion be restricted when the smal theatrical producers should not? Money? Where in the Constitution does it say that rich people can only express opinions within certain limits?

[last1standing]

25. Neither are restricted. They never were.

There are limits to individual campaign contributions but those apply equally to everyone. Where did you get the belief that I'm proposing that one should not be restricted while another should? Artificial entities that only exist on paper should be restricted.

[verges]

27. But what about things that aren't "campaign contributions"?

Like a unflattering Movie of the Week portraying a candidate in a bad light. Produced outside of the campaign auspices? Or commercials (which can be construed as mini-movies) also produced away from the campaign?
How do we limit these without restricting the First Amendment?

Again, I'm not saying it shoudn't or can't be done. I'm just not sure how.

[last1standing]

29. This is where removing corporate personhood comes in.

It's absolutely wonderful that Dick Morris or anyone else feels so passionately about a candidate that they want to get the word out about them and they have every right to do so. However, they do not have the right to set up a "non-profit" front allowing unlimited funneling of cash for that purpose. He should be bound by the same limitations that you and I must obey. He is welcome to scream from the roof-tops or to personally finance a movie about anything he wants (so long as the content is not slanderous) but he is (was) not able to use unlimited corporate funds for this purpose.

Money does not equal speech, despite the current court's beliefs. Money equals power, nothing more and nothing less. This country was founded on the concept of limiting the power of elite groups. This is a complete perversion of that.

[verges]

31. You do realize that I agree with you, right?

It's just that I think the fix is not as simple as many seem to think.

For example, from what you state above, you seem to be advocating limiting the budgets of films. I don't think that's what you really meant. But it can easily be construed. An independent film is still financed by a corporation formed for the production of that film. Therefore all it's funds go into the making of that film. They can also solicit investment from other corporations. Did I mention that this is a Michael Moore film? Of course it has a very political slant. It's called "All Republicans are Poopy Heads." It's planned to be released three days before the election and be broadcsat on ABC, CBS, Fox, SpikeTV and the Discovery Channel. Everybody expects to make money and influence the election and make money some more.

[last1standing]

35. You're really not sounding like it.

But if you are, this isn't a tricky fix, it just won't happen because it would harm the corporations who currently funnel all the cash to the politicians.

Once again, Michael Moore, Dick Morris, et. al. can do anything they like in regards to movies, political or not. However, Michael Moore's corporate stucture (yes, he has one) could not release "Fahrenheit 9/11" two days before the 2004 election and Dick Morris couldn't do it just before an important primary. The effect would be an undue influence on the national discourse with no ability for it to be countered. This is because until recent times, money was not conflated with speech, only power.

And as Warren has repeatedly stated, the press is specifically covered in the Constitution so they are not only free to do this, it is their responsibility - even FOX news.

[anonymous171]

2. Only natural persons should have the right to free speech. nt

[kudzu22]

6. How about a free press?

Can only natural persons publish newspapers or broadcast outlets? What's the difference between corporate "speech" and a corporate "press"?

[verges]

7. Bingo!

That's the dilemma.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. The 'press' is explicitly cited in the constitution.

So there is no dilemma. Corporations remain free to run media outlets that publish propaganda pushing their point of view. The law that was overturned prohibited corporations from spending money on political advocacy, it did not prohibit corporations from owning and operating newspapers and other media outlets.

However there actually is nothing in the constitution that prohibits regulation of corporations - obviously as corporations are regulated in many ways. For example, congress used to prohibit local market dominance by corporations through media outlet ownership, and that was held to be constitutional. That enlightened legislation recognized that corporations are potentially far more powerful than individuals and that unregulated they can and will use their power to control populations and governments for their own narrow interests.

[kudzu22]

18. How about when the New York Times endorses

a candidate? Is that political advocacy by a corporation? Hard to see how it's not.

[last1standing]

21. Nope, it's an endorsement by its editors. A corporation can't think and cannot endorse.

The supreme court does nothing more than legalize the laundering of money for the purposes of propaganda. Since there is no ability to limit the flow of cash for corporate political speech corrupt and/or foreign powers are legally free to create a front company in order to broadcast unlimited amounts of "free speech".

[verges]

24. Agreed.

How should it be fixed without compromising the First Amendment?

[last1standing]

26. Remove corporate personhood, of course.

Corporations, LLCs, ect... are nothing more than artificial entities created to skirt the normal laws individuals must obey. I have one, myself for tax and liability purposes. Remove their personhood and go back to disallowing any corporation to voice political opinions as though they were thinking beings instead of laundering facilities for the uber-wealthy.

[verges]

28. Which brings us back to where we started.

Then a small theatre can't produce a politically oriented play. Fox or MSNBC can't do analysis. If it applies to one artificial construct, it applies to all.

And the argument that Hannity/Olberman etc are responsible for what they say; the network is paying them and providing the production facilities. And the same applies to actor's in a small production.

[last1standing]

30. One last time. FOX and MSNBC do not really exist. They are paper, only.

There is nothing they can be responsible for because they don't really exist except in our minds. If you don't believe me call up NBC and see who answers the phone. It will be a human being named Wanda or Michael, not Mr. NBC. There are groups of people who own these paper beings and they are the ones who have rights and responsibilities. You can't give those to paper beings because you can't punish or reward paper beings. Because they don't exist.

I can't go forward with this until you understand this basic concept. There's nothing I can say that will make any sense to you until you understand that these are figments of your imagination. They are beings without brains.

[NoNothing]

33. You are dodging the question

You are right that coporations are not physically coporeal. Of course that means they have no mouth, no voice. Only humans have mouths. Thus, anything that a human says is protected by free speech, no? Even if they are being paid by a corporation to say it? If you are correct, then "corporate speech" is an oxymoron and in fact does not exist, and cannot be regulated at all!

[last1standing]

36. Their speech is protected, their money is not.

Money does not equal free speech, it equals power. There is no Constitutional guarantee that those with the most power should have the loudest voice.

[NoNothing]

40. So apply that principle to the NYT

We could prohibit the NYT from paying the writers and editors? Or using their profits to operate the machinery? I don't see how you maintain the distinction.

[last1standing]

46. That would be a bill of attainder. Not Constitutional.

And the government couldn't do this anyway unless laws were created that made the speech from these people illegal - also unConstitutional. The government can't halt the speech of an entity that doesn't really exist, but it can state that no non-human entity has the power of speech.

[NoNothing]

48. So get less specific

Not a bill of attainder if you simply imposed a blanket ban on newspapers publishing a certain point of view. Right?

Anyways, how can corporations have a right against bills of attainder if you are correct? Does a table have a right against a bill of attainder? A piece of paper?

[last1standing]

49. Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Does a table have a right against a bill of attainder? A piece of paper?"
No. And like a corporation, the don't need that right. This is the problem with corporate personhood. It made too many people confuse the fact that a corporation is less even than a table or piece of paper. It's a social construct and nothing more.

[NoNothing]

56. Freedom of the press

Does not protect corporations from state governments unless corporations are protected by the 14th Amendment.

"It's a social construct and nothing more."

It is more - it is a legal construct.

[last1standing]

61. Laws ARE social constructs.

But once again, if you can't get there I can't force you. I think this conversation is over.

[verges]

34. So who is responsible for the content on

a network? Is Hannity solely responsible for his show? He's being paid by someone. Aren't they responsible at all? The money, with which he is paid, belongs to the network. Not an individual. So the Network has no respionsibility. The network (maybe not Fox) isn't necessarily run by an individual. it's run by a board. As is our theoretical small theatre. Are they responsible? Why should this small group of people be subjected to different rules than this other small group of people who run the theatre? Because thenetwork has more have money? Where do we draw the line? Sometimes (as illustrated by Fox) money can actually be made by political advocacy. Should that be restricted? And if they are making money, it's not a donation! There is a lot of grey here. And all I'm trying to say is that fixing this problem without creating bigger problems (and this one is pretty damn big)is not going to be as easy as many people seem to think.

[last1standing]

37. Did a person hire Hannity or did a piece of paper?

Did a person open the corporate bank account or did a social construct?

Think carefully on that before answering. Yes, the answer is gray but then most answers are.

[NoNothing]

41. Who pays Hannity's salary?

That is the relevant point.

[last1standing]

43. Exactly! "Who", not "what".

If you can't get to that point we can't go further.

[NoNothing]

47. The answer is Fox

The corporation. It pays the salary. Do we agree on that?

[last1standing]

50. No, we don't agree on that.

I don't know what it will take to make you realize that there is no "Mr. Fox" sitting in an office handing out checks. There is a Mr. Murdoch and he should have the rights and responsibilities of any U.S. citizen.

Can we agree on that? If not then there's nothing left to talk about because you seem to believe that corporations are human beings capable of actual thought.

[NoNothing]

55. It doesn't take thought to cut checks

Just money. Fox doesn't physically exist, but it does legally exist, and it owns real money and real property. Money and property that can be turned into action by those it pays to act.

Now, true it Fox the legal entitiy is CONTROLLED by a collective of real people. But those people also have first amendment rights. So I don't see how this analysis gets us anywhere at all.

[last1standing]

59. OH. MY. GOD! Yes it does! It takes thought to move the hand that holds the pen.

Someone, not something, decides to do this.

You really don't understand that there is no Mr. Fox. It only legally exists because of social constructs which I'm trying like Hell to move you past. "IT" owns nothing. No more than a table owns a plate or a piano owns its keys. Even less so. It was a perversion of justice and law to create these entities as "persons" and until we reverse that, all our laws regarding business are skewed.

Sorry, but I can't continue this conversation. We can't get past step one so there's no point in trying to discuss step two.

[NoNothing]

62. Sorry, you are just wrong

Corporations most certainly do own things. I'm not certain you understand what a corporation really is.

[verges]

53. EXACTLY!

The money DOES NOT come out of any individual's pocket. It comes from a collective made up of the shareholder's. Does each shareholder bear responsibility?

[verges]

42. Yes, there is a lot of grey! That's what I've been trying to point out!

You've yet to answer what the solution is adequately though.

[last1standing]

44. Then I am not able to provide understanding to you.

It happens - not your fault or mine. I see clearly that removing personhood from corporations is the way to "fix" this, but I don't think you understand fully what that means and I can't explain it clearly enough for you.

Perhaps studying the history of corporate personhood and what it has meant to our society would help? :shrug:

[verges]

60. No. I do agree. That is the fix.

But that opens up other problems that are equally undeisreable. This really isn't an easy problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. The constitution explicitly recognizes 'the press'.

Consequently the NYT's editorial page is protected. That was not the issue here. The issue here was the odd notion that a corporation is a person and not an artificial entity established by law and subject to special regulation under the law.

I'll say it again: corporate owned medial outlets are fully protected by the constitution and were before and after this ruling.

[NoNothing]

32. Not quite true!

Note the First Amendment specifically mentions "Congress" and thus originally only applied to the federal government.

It was the 14th Amendment that required these rights to apply against state and local governments as well.

Ironically, it was the original "corporate personhood" headnote that applied the 14th to corporations.

So if you are correct, and corporations do not have any natural rights, (excepting "the press" because it was specifically mentioned) that still means that New York could shut down the NYT. Just the U.S. Congress could not.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. We fought a civil war and amended the constitution

to make it clear that a state could not disregard constitutionally defined rights. You yourself bring up the 14th. The application of the 14th to the 1st's guarantee of freedom of the press was explicitly decided in 1931.

[NoNothing]

73. But if corporations are not covered by the 14th

Then they aren't covered by the other incorporated amendments either.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. 'the press' is.

Ignoring the complication of what constitutes 'the press', it has a special explicit right enumerated in the first amendment regardless of who or what owns those 'presses'.

[kudzu22]

78. Ok, but if the argument is that the first amendment applies

only to natural people, not legal fictions, then how does "the press" get protected if it's a corporation? What if Exxon opens a news division? Can they run editorials then?

My point is that the notion that free speech only applies to actual people is not supported by the text of the First Amendment. And the amendment does protect the rights of corporations in the very next clause (the press).

[pinto]

19. Good points. n/t

[CJCRANE]

3. _

delete

[havocmom]

8. Will churches be next to get 'free speech'

they already get a free ride, and for the huge ones, that means a lot of $$ they keep. If $$ now = free speech, the theocracy will bloom, hand in hand with the fascist/corporate state merger.

Oh, and if multi-national corporations can buy a all the 'free speech' they want, will foreign churches/religious groups be able to do the same?

Americathon, Idiocracy ... two movies people might want to watch again.

[verges]

10. Very valid question.

It's a logical progression.

[anonymous171]

11. Theocracy will never happen. Religion gets in the way of profits

Even the most capitalist friendly religions promote non-profit generating practices. The economic elites aren't particularly fond of religion. They prefer a world focused on consumption and nothing else. Religion/Spirituality, even in its most primitive form, promotes introspection, which is completely contrary to the "You are what you consume" mindset of Corporate America and Madison avenue.

[havocmom]

20. Profiteers are always open to marriage of convience

And fascists are not always opposed to hiding behind religious symbols.

Coffee?

[Greyhound]

38. No pickle at all. An organization is neither a person nor a citizen,

and therefore has no rights beyond those expressly granted in its charter. The fiction of an organization of people creating another, separate entity is absurd on its face.

[verges]

39. OKay, how do we fix the problem that the SCOTUS

gave us without subverting the First Amendment. Please read entire thread before answering.

[Political Heretic]

52. You correctly define Money as not "speech."

Simple.

[verges]

57. And how would the mechanics of that work? Please expand.

Doesn't a campaign contribution count as free speech?

[Political Heretic]

58. No, it doesn't. Doesn't mean you couldn't make one.

It means that money put into elections can be regulated. Does not mean that you would be barred from giving money, unless we chose to have publicly funded elections and not allow money in the process at all ( which is what we should do, but won't)

So saying money is not speech does not automatically ban money from politics - it simply means the government can set laws controlling how much money is pumped into elections from any one individual or entity, without a constitutional question.

Friend, in looking at this thread it seems fairly clear to me that you just want to argue and nothing anyone would say would dissuade you from arguing.

But I can play the game a little while longer, before I tire. So if you want to take a stab a few more questions, I'm game.

[verges]

63. No, friend, I want a solution

to a problem that will hold up and not screw everyone else over. I've yet to hear the solution.

[Political Heretic]

65. Untrue. Money isn't speech. It's that simple.

[Greyhound]

54. By specifically legislating that organizations are not persons.

That will start the fight over the 14th and the coup disguised therein.

[Political Heretic]

69. Corporations are created by corporate charter, which defines the parameters of their existence

...and can be revoked.

Corporations also have many limits place on them by the definition of their existence. By taking legislative action to narrow the scope of what corporate charters will allow, you can avoid the free speech argument by talking the problem from another angle...

...the angle that these are institutions defined by corporate charters and that the definition of "corporation" is up to those who grant the charters and/or write them.

Overturning the SC decision with a constitutional amendment would do it, but of course that's a long shot. It wouldn't subvert the first amendment simply because MONEY IS NOT SPEECH.

Yes, that's an opinion. If you believe money is speech, then the SC ruling was the right one. It's up to you what you believe, but accepting that money is speech has such detrimental effects on a democracy that basically it makes it pretty difficult to really function. Your call.

[PA Democrat]

45. When I donate money to a political party or to a particular candidate

I am making the decisions to support that party/ candidate and their agenda.

But when I own a share of stock, I am a part of that entity that has been given "free speech" and that corporation will be free to donate to a party or to politicians whom I may NOT want to be elected. Who will decides what the corporation with its huge capacity for "speech" will say? Not every shareholder would support funding politicians who will help maximize profits at the expense of the environment, product safety, jobs, access to health care, etc.

If the corporation exists for the sole purpose of making a profit, then would their "speech" not have the same objective? Is it really "free speech" if the message must ALWAYS be to use government to maximize profits no matter the cost? As a human "person" I have free speech and a free will to exercise that right as I choose. As an individual shareholder, as a member of a pension plan which owns stocks, is my "speech" as determined by the corporate entity really "free"?

[Political Heretic]

51. The problem is the definition of "free speech." Money should not be considered speech.

And the fact that calling money speech and then given a special group of highly privileged people or institutions unlimited access to use something most Americans don't have in abundance... actively undermines the speech of everyone else.

But setting that last point aside...

Money <> Speech. If a corporation wants to have some representative stand on a street corner and shout at the top of their lungs for a candidate, they are free to do so. If they want to endorse a candidate they are free to do so. If they want to write op-eds or letters to the editor giving their corporate opinion on what candidate to support they are free to do so.

But dumpling millions and millions of dollars to throw elections isn't free speech. It is, rather an attempt to stifle and drown out the free speech of everyone else.

[verges]

64. I agree. What's the solution?

All that I've read is change definitions! That solves nothing.

Let's revisit my theatre analogy: A small theatre produces a show called "Don't vote Democrat, They're Poopyheads". It'll cost a couple thousand dollars. Should they be restricted? This theatre recieves plenty of tax exempt donations from many Multi-National Corporations. Who is ultimately responsible for the content? The actors? The playwright? The Director? The Board of Director's (in essence the theatre)?

The play's a hit. The Shubert organization (A Corporation) wants to produce it on Broadway. They are going to invest several million dollars, and they expect to make a profit. Who is ultimately responsible for the content? The actors? The playwright? The Director? The Board of Director's (in essence the theatre)?

Now someone, some Multi-Conglomerate that owns both a movie studio AND is heavily invested in petrochemicals wants to make a movie of it. Who is ultimately responsible for the content? The actors? The playwright? The Director? The Board of Director's (in essence the Corporation)?

Should they be allowed? Some? All? Should a line be drawn? If so, where?

[Political Heretic]

67. You haven't made your case that changing definitions does not solve anything.

None of your examples serve as relevant counter-example. I'll try to explain:

Accepting that Money does not equal speech means that each of your concerns can be legally addressed specifically. There is no longer any over-arching protection of money as though it was speech.

People can make a play, run it on broadway, and it can be a hit. Michael Moore's made plenty of films that have never run afoul of campaign finance reform laws even when they were on the books. So have people on the right.

But if money was correctly identified as not speech, then a set of rules can be made about what kind of money can be spent on elections and what kind of advocacy content can be distributed during elections. Limits can be established. Maybe a film that is timed to release right before super tuesday that trashes a political nominee and runs all sorts of smears about him or her - maybe we feel like that might unduly influence a fair election process. If so we pass laws that regulate what kind of money can be spent and how it cane be spent when it comes to electioneering.

We have courts to address your specific examples of concern. Courts would work, IF money was not defined as speech. They could then interpret the laws and make sure that corporations, playwrights, actors and the like were not being treated unfairly.

So... if money was not defined as speech then:

Should they be allowed? In many cases, sure. If there are special cases where it should not, because it becomes direct electioneering, that would be for courts to decide.

Some? Sure.


All? In this instance, with any additional information about special contetxts, sure. I saw no connection with this production and a specific candidate or election.

Should a line be drawn? The line WAS drawn - you act like its some mystery that we can't solve. And yes, it should be drawn. We set parameters on the actions that people can take all the time, and we do so in the public interest.

Campaign Finance reform laws set parameters on the scale of money and type of money activity that would be allowed in elections. And it could made those regulations because it correctly believed that money is not speech and thus falls into the domain of things that can be regulated in the public interest.

In my opinion, campaign finance reform laws didn't go far enough. But the notion that somehow this is an impossible to solve conundrum with no solution is just nonsense.

NOW, if you're asking how we get this done now that the supreme court has ruled, that's a different issue where things look pretty grim. I think I'll take a mass movement and I'm not sure we as a nation are up for that yet.

[verges]

70. You're last paragraph answers me. And I concur. Thank-you. nt

[Blue_Tires]

74. a real solution could be (but will never happen)

publicly-funded election along with a switch to proportional representation

[spanone]

68. it's not a pickle. it's not even a cucumber. it tilts the scales completely out of balance.

[Atticus]

71. No pickle at all.

Assemble the board of directors of the corporation of your choice. Ask any question you like and specify that none of the humans could, directly or indirectly, speak.

Wait for an answer.

That should be the extent of "corporate speech".

[woo me with science]

72. K& R

Very interesting thread.

[LaydeeBug]

76. Epic Fail. nt

[verges]

77. I'm sorry that you think bringing up legitimate questions

is an "Epic Fail". I am against the ruling. I want a solution. I just want one that's not worse. And it's not going to be as simple as some people think.

[crispini]

79. You are comparing different kinds of imaginary people.

First, take the press out of it -- their speech is already protected.

Second, your comparison of small museums and theatre groups with corporations is not necessarily a valid one.

Corporations are commercial entities whose primary mandate is to make profit. It's even written in their bylaws, usually. Have you ever seen the movie "The Corporation"? If corporations were individuals, they would be psychopaths. Their motivations are solely and entirely profit. All else falls away under that mandate. Their "speech" such as it is will be subject entirely to that motivation.

On the other hand, small theater centers and the like are non-profits. They have a variety of motivations. Their motivations are written in their charters. By and large, their motivations are community building and educational -- this is why they are non-profit.

Sorry if you've already discussed this in the thread -- haven't read the whole thing yet. Going back to read more now. BTW, I appreciate your point about posting this thread and I welcome the discussion.

[verges]

80. Non-Profits are corporations.

Corporations don't have to be big. A small theatre will still work witha CEO (Artistic Director) and a Board of Trustees/Directors. And Non-Profit is really a misnomer. They better make a profit or funding dries up. The differnce is that all profits should be turned back into the company and some other sources of revenue are used.

[crispini]

82. No, actually, they're not.

Legally speaking, non-profits are 501c3 organizations and answer to a completely different set of laws than corporate entities, which are, well, organized as corporations, i.e. they have INC after their names, and are incorporated and organized by a very different process than that which is used to set up corporations. I know, because I'm on the board of a recently created non-profit, and we even needed a different kind of lawyer to help us get it set up.

Edited to add -- however, as you mentioned above, if wanting to be sneaky about it, a corporation could potentially give or form a non-profit and endow it with plenty of money to do whatever kind of political speech they wanted to occur, so the distinction is potentially not all that helpful.

[adamuu]

81. I really appreciated both sides of this debate. This was healthy for DU

Good job, all who participated constructively.

[adamuu]

83. I don't think this thread deserves to be Unrec'ed. The OP can't be the only person

with these doubts. It's good to have them fleshed out.