this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
514 points (98.7% liked)

Work Reform

17005 readers
926 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Penguin_1024@piefed.zip 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and labor unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

I am not a lawyer but as I understand the issue the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money = speech, and since there is no point at which an authority can say "You've spoken long enough", there is no point at which an authority can say "You've spent enough." In public city council meetings people do get arrested if they speak considerably longer than the allowed time limit.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just to add, there are still limits in place that prevent corporations from giving money directly to political campaigns or candidates, but there's nothing that prevents corporations from telling people who to vote for or spending millions on ad campaigns in support of their preferred candidate.

So a given candidate's campaign may raise only a modest sum, but they don't need a lot of money to run ads when Megacorp A is willing to spend $1 billion on their own series of commercials to get them elected. And if that politician happens to provide favorable treatment to the corporation after they win, then it's seen as an investment worth spending.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

CU wasnt the first time SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations being human, the first was not long after the 14th amendment