Those individuals can make their own expenditures in support of their First Amendment rights which are no less than the First Amendment rights that anyone not associated with a corporation has.
Not if their money is tied up in corporations.
If the corporation has rights then they are in addition to the rights their associates have on their own.
I keep hearing that. No one has yet to put forth an argument for it.
I haven't always supported the positions of the corporation I'm associated with and it offends me that they can imply that I do through their expenditures.
Then choose not to be associated with it or change the corporation's positions. Your emotions otherwise mean nothing.
You seem to think that money is equivalent to free speech but in reality it is merely an amplifier of free speech. Most corporations (especially the large ones) have resources far in excess of of most individuals. That stacks the deck in favor of corporations and wealthy individuals enough and I'm tired of my voice being drowned out by them.
Technically, most corporations are shells and/or individual corporations and don't have such resources. But even if we consider big corporations what's a constitutional valid justification for preventing them from exercising a particular right to speech and yet allowing you that right? Merely having a lot of money and saying things you don't like aren't good enough IMHO.
No, everyone is held back. It's called opportunity cost.
Note that I already considered opportunity cost when I wrote "Most really don't have anything better to do. That's who football is for." Sure, it's nice to think that we'd be wonderful people, if it weren't for football, but it's not true. After all, they could already do those wonderful things now and they aren't.
I don't believe corporations should be able to freely spend their money on partisan politics. The Citizens United decision was a travesty.
So what? Just because you don't like the ruling doesn't mean that it was flawed in some way. The basis for the ruling was that the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" unfairly made it illegal for corporations to do issue advocacy ads (which are expressions of free speech), but not other categories of people. This created an unconstitutional constraint on free speech by groups of people organized in the form of a corporation.
Recall that I spoke of restrictions on the right of people to act on behalf of a corporation? This is one way it can happen. If I spent $1 million of my own money to take out an attack ad on President Obama, it would be legal under the above law. Similarly, it would be legal, if I spent $1 million of some other individual's money. But it becomes illegal, if it's $1 million of a corporation's money. The people whose interests the corporation represents just had their First Amendment rights taken away.
And the idea that certain privileges should have a subsequent impairment of rights is a poisonous belief. There are certain situations where these are baked into the Constitution, such as when the person holds a political office or government position of power. They are held to theoretically higher and tougher standards than a normal person and a variety of concrete restrictions have been placed on their power.
But the same is applied to other classes of people, such as people who own property or drive (drug seizure laws), or who fly (the ongoing security theater in US airports).
Finally, there's really no way to make the law workable since it can't ban political speech without violating the First Amendment.
The reality is that as worker productivity has increased by orders of magnitude, worker pay adjusted for inflation has decreased sharply.
People who say things like this don't get that there is more to the world than their little slice of developed world. The rest of the world's wages, which is considerably more numerous, is improving when adjusted for inflation.
managed to hit about 6 miles
Oops. I didn't remember the altitude correctly.
One of those defense companies, which was funded more than a billion dollars over the past couple of decades to develop high altitude airships, managed to hit about 4 miles before their 150 million dollar vehicle broke up. Sure, it had a bit more functionality, but "it works" beats functionality every time.
The reason is quite simple: we have all the technology and resources required so that people DON'T need to work, that was the whole concept behind the leisure society.
There's an even simpler reason. Because people make choices. They may not want to work, but they do want the things they can get by working.
So, what do you do with all these people? Well, you make them spend exorbitant amounts of time in meetings and generating data and reports to make them look productive.
Or their employer can have them doing useful work when they're doing work. That in turn creates more opportunities for useful work elsewhere in the economy, should anyone be interested enough in it.
We are squandering the most glorious time in history in terms of energy resources, technology and machinery in order to maintain a social order that comes from the caves.
Nah, that's an agrarian society thing. I'd say the leisure society ideal is actually more the caveman thing since both have a strong emphasis on doing as little work as possible.
I keep seeing the argument of what we get for a dollar funded to NASA. I ask what we get for a dollar funded to professional sports. I get to see some grown man chase all over some field trying to snare a ball.
You have to consider this from return on investment. For buying an overpriced ticket, you get to see grown men chasing a pigskin. That's huge value compared to typical NASA projects, which while they do somewhat more, also cost a bunch of orders of magnitude more.
Watching it on TV is even better from the ROI point of view.
Our society seems to be quickly succumbing to what the economists refer to as "tragedy of the commons", where everybody is in it for themselves regardless of the cost to others. Our government is passing all sorts of laws encouraging "rent seeking" ( ownership benefits ) at the expense of production ( job creation ), leading us into a welfare state. I see big social problems ahead with this leadership model, as the ownership faction will run amok, leading to enormous wealth disparities between those who labor and those who own. We are setting ourselves up for a civil war between the worker and the politician/banker classes.
I view NASA's activities as contributing to this state of affairs. It's not all their fault. I doubt they would have spread the work of a project over a bunch of congressional districts, if that weren't the most important aspect of the project from Congress's point of view.
but notice that it is not expected to predict the form of any new species at all nor predict the numbers or types of species extant in a million years from now (but expect cockroaches).
Given that we just moved hard into a non-evolutionary mode, this shouldn't be a surprise. For example, I think there's a fair chance that in a century most organisms on Earth will not even be descended from organisms alive at this time. It's hard to make predictions about a million years from now when DNA based life might almost vanish in a century from things that haven't been created yet.
I'm not saying that corporations shouldn't have any rights. There is good reason to grant corporations a limited amount of personhood so they can be treated as a single entity legally and so their investors have liability limited to what they've invested in the corporation but that's about all the rights they need as far as I'm concerned.
That's the current state of affairs. You already have what you want. This drama is for naught.