So the corporations have more rights and freedoms than Keith?

[Hubert Flottz]

The corporate personhoods can secretly give all the money they want, to whomever they want, but a private citizen is punished for his or her "FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

[SugarShack]

1. BEST POINT IN THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION! K&R

[HereSince1628]

2. True, and you usually aren't entitled to 5th amend rights

to know your corporate co-worker accuser, either.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. If I was guessing I'd say Jack Welch is the culprit.

[Joanne98]

3. Good point. They're human beings and Keith isn't apparently!

[LSparkle]

5. Excellent point ...

They can buy elections with their secret corporate
contributions but they're free to clamp down on us
individuals when we try to participate in the democratic
process.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Does it bother you what Keith does with his own money...

Not as much as it bothers me what BP does with theirs.

[LSparkle]

13. I wasn't endorsing the corporate position ...

It isn't fair -- they should have to disclose
their contributions and KO should be free to
make his. Yes, it bothers me ENORMOUSLY what
BP and even my own corporation does with its
money -- we ought to know what our corporate
masters are endorsing!

[Hubert Flottz]

18. I agree with you 100%, or more!

The very same things that bother you about this, bother me also.

Keith earned his money and he has a right to use it as he pleases...on the other hand people who run corporations with stock holders, shouldn't be allowed to possibly use company funds in a way that every company stock holder may not agree with.

Same rules should apply to corporations and tax free churches, that apply to labor organizations who support political candidates that every dues paying member may not support.

[glinda]

6. Wow! This is truly interesting.

[NeedleCast]

7. While I don't think this will turn out to be the point

this isn't a free speech issue. KO signed a contract and that contract said what it said. Whether this is just MSNBC trying to get rid of him or something else entirely, it has nothing to do with free speech violations.

Sweet Baby J, I thought the Tea Party had a hard time understanding Freedom of Speech...

Freedom of Speech does NOT make you immune from the repercussions of your speech. If I go into my bosses' office and call him a shit eating donkey rapist he can fire me. I'm free to say it, but I'm not immune from the results of saying it. If KO signed a contract saying he would not donate to campaigns without prior approval, he's free to donate to campaigns without prior approval...he's not free from violating his contract.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. It does not appear that KO was covered by any such clause...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9490298

[NeedleCast]

15. If that's the case he can attempt to sue

I don't have the legal understanding to get into the whole mess of who owns what and what contracts say what and what subsidiaries are beholding to who's rules and I doubt anyone else on DU is close enough to the situation to have a credible assessment.

[Demstud]

19. Corporations should not be allowed to use contracts that way

It is my opinion that private working contracts should not be able to require someone to seek approval before participating in our political process. It gives corporations too much power over elections and the ability to manipulate elections in the manner they see fit. I know the reality of the situation is that many corporations do infact do this, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it if we don't like it. Just like they have the "right" to fire or suspend KO over this, we have a right to complain, right letters, boycott their advertisers etc. to get someone we like back on the air. Fuck their contract, I'm not bound by it, and they aren't bound to enforce that clause. It's up to them to weigh the pros and cons of losing my viewership and many others vs. attempting to control one employee's personal political actions.

And it CAN certainly be a free speech matter. While Olbermann certainly won't have this problem since he's pretty wealthy, for many of us we need a job to buy essential things for life (food, water, shelter, heat in the winter, medicine, etc.). In these cases, corporations are able to literally control our freedom of speech (and restrict it how they see fit) by holding our lives hostage through our ability to be employed. It's almost like having a gun pointed to your head and someone saying "don't say this or I'll shoot you." Sure, I can still say what I want, but I'll get my brains splattered on the wall as a consequence! It's not much of a choice for many of us.

[NeedleCast]

26. For the most part, I agree that they shouldn't use contracts in this manner

I understand why they do it, because it helps absolve them from liability or distance themselves from a potential emberassment. When I was in the military, we were not supposed to participate in political rallies in unfiform under the pretext that the military was siding with a candidate or taking a side on an issue. I don't know that "many" corporations do it, at least not for positions that aren't in the public eye, but otherwise I agree with you.

I've worked for Lockheed, Northrop and the federal government as a contractor and none of them have ever suggested or required that I seek approval for political donations. If this were a happening on a common basis, I'd agree with you completely, but I don't think it is (yet).

[Hubert Flottz]

29. The republicans made labor organizations start paying taxes and

jumping through all kinds of hoops several years back, based on the idea that "Every dues paying member may not support the people the higher ups might contribute union funds to."

The churches remain tax exempt and trouble free to donate funds and support politicians regardless of who their members may or may not approve of.

Corporate boards are not bound by any rules to even report to their stock holders or anyone else, who they may have donated to.

[inna]

8. Absolutely amazing, isn't it.

[Demstud]

9. Obviously they do

It's unfortunate though that some on here call others "babies" for thinking this isn't right.

[Faryn Balyncd]

12. +100000000000000000000 0000000000000

[FiveGoodMen]

14. That's why corps give money to politicians

They want to change the laws so that they have all the rights and we have none.

Just a back-door way of re-introducing slavery.

That's been the plan for the past 30 years.

[sellitman]

16. Winner!!!!!!

Best post we will see on this subject period!!!

Bravo!!!!

[Hubert Flottz]

21. Thank you I'm delighted that you approve.

I won't be watching NBC or CNBC or MSNBC until KO is back on. If he goes somewhere else I'll watch his program. I'm tired of being lied to.

I will not buy another GE product either.(not that I would have anyway because they mainly sell junk anymore)

[SoCalDem]

17. Yes they do.

Unfortunately, when your paycheck is signed by "someone else", they usually have the final say in just about every case.

[Hubert Flottz]

20. The laws need to be changed to protect us.

[robcon]

22. Keith has a contract. He violated it.

It has nothing to do with whether that contract is with a person or a corporation.

The reasons for suspending him are flimsy, but defensible, unlike the Juan Williams firing, IMO.

[arbusto_baboso]

23. Well, yes. They have more money so they have more freedom of speech.

Didn't you get the little FU memo from the Supreme Court?

[Hubert Flottz]

24. If impeachment is on the table it should be directed at the SCOTUS!

The filthy five are plotting to destroy democracy.

[Naturyl]

25. Just now noticed? n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

27. Thanks for the bump!

[NotThisTime]

28. Yes /nt