"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Pgm_wD9AK3O680

have a good evening...


I don't know much about the law, so maybe that's the problem, but I don't
understand the issue with allowing (or not allowing) corporations to
contribute to campaigns. I guess the courts consider them the same as
individuals, but that just seems odd and wrong-headed to me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 10, 1:25*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AeFTeeZgHFLy1E...

have a good evening...

I don't know much about the law, so maybe that's the problem, but I don't
understand the issue with allowing (or not allowing) corporations to
contribute to campaigns. I guess the courts consider them the same as
individuals, but that just seems odd and wrong-headed to me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

corporations aren't people and aren't mentioned in the constitution.
they are a legal fiction. their money is real and it distorts the
political process

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 1:25 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AeFTeeZgHFLy1E...

have a good evening...

I don't know much about the law, so maybe that's the problem, but I don't
understand the issue with allowing (or not allowing) corporations to
contribute to campaigns. I guess the courts consider them the same as
individuals, but that just seems odd and wrong-headed to me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

corporations aren't people and aren't mentioned in the constitution.
they are a legal fiction. their money is real and it distorts the
political process


I thought I read somewhere about a Supreme Court ruling that basically
allows corps to be treated like individuals, as far as "First Amendment"
rights go.


--
Nom=de=Plume