of a single cause or viewpoints to speak as one is completely different than a company. A company is made up of many people who do not share the same causes or viewpoints, but are given a single voice in politics by Citizen's United.

They are a form of dictatorship since the CEOs abd Chairmen can dictate policy. The employees and sharholders have no say in reality. Of course, any intelligent being who has observed the actual behavior of corporation know that, but this Bozo will do anything to protect his benefactors.

We're all here because we share the same values. You can't say the same for corporations.

Employees of corporations have freedom of speech, but not at work. Only the CEO (or board) has "freedom of speech" in the corporation. And freedom to use the corporate coffers for political donations. If you're simply an employee, try getting some of that corporate "freedom of speech" money for your own "freedom of speech" donation. See what happens.

That's what's "ironic."

-------
Kellogg's was founded as the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company on February 19, 1906, by Will Keith Kellogg as an outgrowth of his work with his brother John Harvey Kellogg at the Battle Creek Sanitarium following practices based on the Seventh-day Adventist Christian denomination.
-------

Citizen's United was a corporation organized to produce political speech. That was the purpose of that corporation.

The question in the case, simplified, was whether money provided by the corporate sponsors of CU constituted an indirect payment in support of a candidate for office.

Now, when you watch Rachel Maddow on television, that program is being paid for by GM, GE, Lexus, and a host of other advertisers.

Should corporations be allowed to run commercials on networks airing political content? If your answer is "no", then we can expect political content on television to disappear right quick.

FOX has sponsors you won't find on MSNBC, and vice versa.

Now, in the commercial context, you can say that what those companies are doing is paying to promote their products to an audience.

However, if you are saying it is not in a corporation's interest to promote things that will improve the bottom line of that corporation, then I kind of wonder "why not?" Those Chevron commercials where all of those diverse people "agree" that fracking is just wonderful, aren't exactly selling gasoline. They are attempting to influence public opinion on an issue that matters to their bottom line. So that when you see a politician who wants to ease drilling regulations, you say, "Oh, yes, all of those lovely people on the commercial said we really need it, and they'll do it responsibly."

Are the Chevron commercials "political" or not?

Look at the commercials that run during Sunday morning talk shows. Why is Boeing defense systems running television commercials. Are any of the viewers thinking about buying a bomber?

As far as I know corporations can gather their employees and scream at the top of their lungs until the cops come by to warn them about disturbing the peace. Or herd them into a "free speech zone" or something.

Is Clarence talking to his wallet again?