Many (but not all) progressives are up in arms about the recent Supreme Court decision striking down laws that prohibit corporations from advocating for political candidates. They rightly claim that corporations have too much influence, and that this decision will probably only make that worse. They wrongly claim that restricting corporate speech is the solution, and that it's constitutional.
I'd like to pose a question to my progressive friends: Why should Fox News be allowed to promote Sarah Palin for president, while Apple is banned from campaigning for Barack Obama?
Why should General Electric be able to use its subsidiary, NBC, to promote candidates that support war (war that will increase the profits of GE subsidiaries that sell military equipment), while Ben & Jerry's is banned from supporting Bernie Sanders?
Does this make any sense at all?
Banning speech is never a solution. Refuting bad speech with good speech is.
No comments:
Post a Comment