|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Actually that part was due to various interpretations of the 14th Amendment
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 at 11:45:05 pm EST (Viewed 274 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I agree with this, so long as private companies don't become monopolies.
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2022 at 10:35:34 pm EST (Viewed 276 times)
They are also the ones that pushed for Citizens United, which allows businesses to be viewed as people, so they could give unlimited donations, under the guise of speech.
LGDB: This is just a minor correction but I thought worth bring up: it wasn't Citizens United that did this specifically (though Citizens does presuppose it.) Unless I'm mistaken you're thinking of the 1886 decision Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific rail road, which first applied the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment to a corporation (as it would a person) in a headnote, which was subsequently interpreted as part of the SCOTUS verdict generally (apparently) numerous times.
Citizens United--as well as its precursor in the 70's, "the Belloti decision"--equates the campaign donations of various entities including businesses as forms of speech and therefore would be protected under the First Amendment.
---the late great Donald Blake
P.S. I only vaguely remember hearing about this and had to look all this up lol