Add new comment

Two points: 1. Restricting corporations is not the same as restricting people. The corporations that were responsible for the [w:Bhopal_disaster|Bhopal industrial disaster) (that killed thousands of people and resulted in 20,000 deaths with an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 survivors with permanent injuries) was never held to account for its culpability and nor have any of the successor corporations that replaced Union Carbide. So when it is advantageous, a corporation is a person and when it isn't then it isn't. Corporations serve to allow the rich to behave with impunity and suffer no consequences. Corporations should not be allowed to act as a cloak for gangster capitalists. 2. Wealth should not be allowed to drown the voice of the poor who are in fact the majority. If one person with $Billions in personal wealth can afford to bury the truth in a sea of self-serving persuasiveness, <i>that</i> is the limitation to free speech we are concerned with here. Limiting the say of the rich to allow all individuals the same amount of airtime is optimizing freedom of speech