2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I am not a lawyer but I do believe in free speech.  Why does it seem corporations (and perhaps large organizations) have more "free speech" rights lately than individuals (including and especially individuals such as Bill Sizemore who seems to be a favorite target)?

I like to look at primary documents and not get my news from 2 dozen news stories - even CNN gets it wrong and I've seen that.  From what I can tell the multi-million $$ suits against Sizemore have been dropped, they have since tried to get him to stop writing initiatives in exchange for stopping their lawsuits.  Is this fair?  Should an individual acquiese?

For a longer version of how corporations have lots of free speech freedom vs. the individual (or, the third party candidate, or the lone voice), check out my blog at www.harrietsnotebook.blogspot.com - go to the 'Tale of Rackets' entry, and if restless skip to the Bill Sizemore section for more history.

posted 3 years ago
view in context