"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

yawn Are you kidding, William? Why don't you convict John Adams for
treason in absentia? g

I think it was an unfortunate decision, but I'm not going to comment on it
until I read the case and the dissent. Maybe tomorrow. But forget the
treason, and make sure you know the precedent and reasoning behind the
ruling. I'm sympathetic to your thoughts but this is a legal case
involving
a lot of precedent, and you may not like the consequences if you ignore
it.


I tried to read it but my head started melting. Must be the head cold

Anyway, am I understanding that groups like unions, NRA, Bradybunch, and
other
'corporations' are able to avocate for or against a candidate for office
w/o the time
limit cutoff prior to an election?

Without having read it yet (after lunch), that's my understanding from the
reports.


Some may object to my inclusion of unions with corporations but I don't
see much
difference between the NRA that is incorporated and a labor union.

Wes

On the face of it, NRA, the ACLU, and other organizations that are formed at
least partly for the PURPOSE of advocacy are, to me, a pretty clear case.
Labor unions are more or less in that category. It's difficult to argue that
their advocacy contradicts the intent of their members.

Corporations formed for a business purpose are a little different. As George
says, they're using shareholder money for a purpose that the shareholders
may not agree with. As it is, though, shareholders have little recourse but
to sell their stock -- but their purpose in buying the stock may be
undermined if they sell it under such duress.

Speculating mode off. I'll read it after I finish my pork chop. g

--
Ed Huntress