1005
Doublespeak
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
1005 points (99.5% liked)
Work Reform
17554 readers
360 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:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
People don’t have fewer rights under the First Amendment when they assemble to exercise them than they do individually. Citizens United was correctly decided and if you disagree, it’s because you think it’s a ruling that “corporations are people.”
When it’s actually a ruling that corporations are fictions.
Except that's not how they implemented it. Somehow organizing grants you EXTRA rights over being an individual. Suddenly you get an avenue to get around personal contribution limits, on top of retaining your original personal contributions allowance...
They who? Implemented what?
There never were individual limits on political speech.
There were and still are.
You, as an individual, right now, have a limit on how much money you can donate to a political campaign.
An organization is able to bypass that by spending that money directly in support of the campaign, but not directly giving it to them. Thus granting the organization's owners more political power than they had as an individual.
No; the First Amendment bars any government regulation on political speech.
There have never been individual limits on indirect political support for issues or candidates because the First Amendment bars government regulation of your political speech.
You’re kind of right, Citizens United did not rule that corporations are people.
That determination was made in the 1880s in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad. Kind of, it was in a summary before the ruling, but (like Robert Bork’s essay that said true monopolies don’t exist and even if they did competition would destroy them and so antitrust action should only be taken if a merger will negatively impact consumers where “negatively impact consumers” is constrained to mean “raise prices in the immediate future”) it was treated as having the force of law.
https://uslawexplained.com/santa_clara_county_v_southern_pacific_railroad
CU doesn’t rely on corporations being people. It relies on individuals having First Amendment rights.
If that's not the most white washing statement I've ever read...
It’s not a ruling about the rights of corporations!