--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't understand is how you can make this a > consistent matter of > principal. If you apply this to for profit > corporations, then a number of > things that you have defended as free speech are > really coerced speech. > For example, is it OK for Halliburton to contribute > to political campaigns > and run ads which are intended to influence the > public on issues that are > important to Halliburton? > > Dan M.
But I don't apply it to for profit corporations. You have a choice about those. You can buy their stock or not. You can work for them or not. You _don't_ have a choice about paying taxes. By choosing to buy their stock, you assent to their using your money to speak (and I'm glad to see that you agree with me that money is speech :-) It's fine for corporations to do that. Unions, _as long as they operate under the open shop_, can do so as well (closed shop unions are a different situation). But I don't have a choice about my taxes. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
