Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
That does not excuse government censorship of political opinions.
Well they are not exactly political opinions. They are business decisions. There seems to be something different intuitively between a citizen who is asking for what is his, such as senior citizens who feel that cutting social security is taking away money that they have paid into which they are entitled to. And a corporation who is asking for what it wants to be "his". Because of course, there is no such thing as entitlements in the free market. You must compete or die, but corporate lobbying exists solely for the big government guaranteeing advantages which confer guaranteed market share, which is most definitely not belonging to anyone but those that provide the best product/service, theoretically.

How can that reasoning allow the government from legally preventing someone from stating their opinion?
I don't believe this is exactly cutting away a company's voice really. A company would still be allowed to share it's opinion in the marketplace of ideas, and individuals, such as individuals who work for the company and would like their company to succeed, can work to promote the message. But the practicality of what we have today is a system which we all agree is broken, which isn't listening to the public either left or right. Congressional approval is hitting all time lows. It is no secret that the majority of time that candidates use while on the campaign trail is not really the interacting with public part, but the fundraisers and the networking and the backroom promises.

Under no circumstances would I say that companies would not be able to publish a statement in say...the New York Times. Take for example the SOPA bill. It is perfectly acceptable for tech companies to make a statement to the public about the bill. What is not acceptable is the Congressmen/women from Hollywood (not surprising) leading the charge to shove the big government bill down everyone's throats because of the interests they are representing. Do you agree that SOPA was a disgusting bill? I guess I should have asked that first before assuming.

The government has absolutely no place in determining what represents the public interest and censoring those it deems unworthy.
But they wouldn't be determining anything. It is already determined under tax code. "For profit" and "non profit" fall under strict guidelines from the IRS and it is easy see that "for profits" are always going to be arguing for action not on behalf of some idea of right and wrong but on behalf of profit. Non profits I have said as before, are ok in my book.

Also, before citizens united non-profits were censored.
Well, then that is one part of the decision I would agree with. I just feel that it is obviously naive to have entities which have lots of money, in a system where whoever has the most money has the loudest voice, are allowed to dispense as much of it as they want, and their mission statement is very clear from the get-go. More money, more money, more money. Doesn't matter if we get big government intruding on everyone's privacy, piracy is hurting our profits. Doesn't matter if free market innovation is killed by draconian regulations, it secures our dominating place in the market, and makes us more money. It just seems like common sense that this is where we must leave our idealism behind and concede that the world is not going to operate as how we hope it would.