Naomi Klein mentions in her interview on MSNBC, a movement expansion of UK Uncut to the US , who is targeting Corporations who aren’t paying their share of taxes.
I think they also need to focus dissent on the Supreme Court justices who allowed the vote which gave corporations the “right†to spend unlimited on political campaigns, which to Media studies people is an obvious move to ignore the persuasive power of the media to “deceive†people. We rail against “State Run TV†in non-democrarcies. We think that “Corporation†–powered political campaigns are not giving advantage to the preferred ideologies of Corporations?
Here's an argument I always hear: Corporations can own property, can be treated as a 'person' in a court of law, and generally be viewed and treated as a 'person'. Why can't they express free speech via campaign contributions, just like you and me?
John,
I hear the same arguments.
So what kind of argument do you usually give to those arguments?
For me, it is that as corporations, the power of the money behind them affords them much more powerful and formidable pressure on the shaping of opinion via such vehicles as national media. It would be the same reason why it wouldn't be proper to appoint a supreme court justice who had been paid enormous sums by any of those corporations. Wouldn't a corporation, under the "person's rights" argument, just be a mere "friend's opinion" in the ear of that supreme court justice? I think we all know that it would be much more than that.