After the supreme court decision.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Linde Knighton

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 8:21:30 PM1/25/10
to Maryrose Asher, coalitionsummit, Karen, Bob Peck, paul mcclintock, Rachel Hawkridge, Janet Jordan, &#39,Joe Szwaja&#39,
I am passing this on to all. If you don't agree, that is fine, we will always have things we do not agree on. But if you can use this idea, please feel free.
Linde
                                               Idea
How about a state law that allows the 1st $200 donation from an individual to be tax free? It might help us, because we are highly unlikely to get more than $200 for any one person anyway.

Webmail pamellison

unread,
Jan 27, 2010, 5:15:13 PM1/27/10
to coalitio...@googlegroups.com, greenpartymike, dori, John Vinji, michael burger
Sounds like a good idea to me.  I believe we also need to organize around this insipid decision by the Supreme Court.  Until we end Corporate personhood, the citizen will always be slaves to pay the system taxes for all it needs, and have little input with what is done with our tax dollars.  Getting the word out about this is another way to organize around people's anger over our rights being usurped at every turn.

I have cc'd in my Planning Team and hope they will subscribe to the Coalition-summit list.

Pam Ellison
Minnesota Open Progressives
Chair

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coalition Summit (WA State)" group.
To post to this group, send email to coalitio...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to coalition-summ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coalition-summit?hl=en.

Richard Winger

unread,
Jan 29, 2010, 11:28:50 AM1/29/10
to coalitio...@googlegroups.com, greenpartymike, dori, John Vinji, michael burger
The recent decision has nothing to do with corporate personhood.  The First Amendment extends free speech protection to everyone, and Justice Stevens acknowledged that.  The US Supreme Court had ruled in 1964 that a corporation, the New York Times, enjoys First Amendment protection against restrictive libel laws.  The US Supreme Court had ruled in 1978 that corporations enjoy First Amendment protection to speak out on ballot issues.  The US Supreme Court had ruled in 2007 that the First Amendment protects corporate speech to mention federal candidates as long as they don't say explicitly to vote for or against them.

Corporate personhood only relates to the 14th amendment.  The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" and that has always been held to apply to groups of all kinds, including corporations.  People just aren't paying attention to these basic historical facts.

--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Webmail pamellison <pamel...@isp.com> wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages