[Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

[Mike Godwin]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

>> Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not
>> simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of
>> what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.
>
> The law in question was with respect to "electioneering
> communications", which the court held was speech.

If you are expressing a disagreement with my characterization of the
issue in Citizens United, I'm unclear what that disagreement is.

> "Political activity" is awfully broad.  The ruling was primarily
> concerned with political speech.

That's imprecise. The case centered on the scope of Congress's power
to regulate speech aimed at affecting elections.

> First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I
> made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to
> corporations in general.  I specifically pointed out that there are
> regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations.

I hadn't understood you to be talking also about for-profit
corporations such as The New York Times Company, which (if you happen
to read the Times) you may know sometimes tries to affect the outcome
of elections.

As for WMF's tax status, I'm not going to talk about that -- I simply
pointed out that 501(c) organizations are regulated.

> If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election,
> what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence
> legislation?

I'm entirely comfortable with The New York Times Company (a
corporation) and its efforts to influence the outcome of elections
(e.g., through candidate endorsements; I wouldn't want to prohibit The
New York Times Company from political speech.


--Mike