re: #38 Dark_Falcon

I wanted to pull out a counter argument to this, but Schrdinger’s cat is sleeping on top of the file folder containing it.

Hey, let me ask you a question in advance of a ruling.

The Supreme Court is probably going to rule against the ability of public sector unions to collect fees from non-union members, with the argument that maybe some of those members value their salaries above pensions, or disagree with the union’s request for more staff and/or shorter hours per person.

This ruling is going to get celebrated by a lot of ‘conservatives’ because it’ll severely financially impact a lot of public-sector unions.

However, it sets up the precedent that the speech of an individual may not be represented fairly by a group even if that group claims that they are acting in the interests of those individuals. One possible outcome of this is that corporations would be more restricted in their ‘speech’, through a number of different routes: the employees obviously do not all agree with the corporation’s donations and statements, but neither do shareholders. The shareholders may have voluntarily paid money for the shares, but may still object to the ‘speech’ of the corporation and have no recourse other than indirectly voting in elections for officers, once a year. This means that recourse is post-facto, and so it wouldn’t be sufficient according to the reasoning attached to this case.

Do you think that corporations should have greater freedom in ‘speech’ (the reason I’m putting in quotes is that it basically means ‘money funneled to special interest groups or politicians’ in this context) than unions, and if so, why?