|
Ah, but that's where the whole issue of the collective then comes into question ... which is why and how our system of government purportedly exists in the first place. Unless it's to be every man for himself, humans endeavor to create various collectives for their mutual benefit. Government itself for defense, common infrastructure, more recently for so-called "entitlement" programs of heath and welfare and retirement security. Many other entities, private and public, are set up to achieve for mankind what man alone could not.
Why should political speech be an area prohibited to this kind of beneficial collective endeavor? Otherwise, I am in agreement with most of what Alex wrote. Perhaps if campaign contributions could be traced back to a set of humans ... So that Mr. Iger's wealth speech can be matched by the Concerned Citizens of Hollywood.
I have no particular problems with unions needing written authorization from their members to back politicians. Nor would I have a problem with written authorization from shareholders for corporations to do the same.
The devil would be in the details. I agree that humans should retain all the rights, and entities none ... as long as humans remain free to organize in order to pool the benefits of those human rights.
|