Comment: On Mr. Hank Johnson's MORAL HAZARD proposal

If a corporation isn't a person then it makes no sense to regulate, restrict, or deem lawful or unlawful what they can or cannot claim / express as such (corporations).

FREE SPEECH for dogs cannot be granted, denied, or regulated : for dogs CANNOT speak.

There are already sufficient laws protecting INDIVIDUALS against the defamation, libel, or slander FROM OTHER INDIVIDUALS (alone or in groups). Those base themselves on the false claims of the latter against verifiable or unverifiable facts about the former.

Mr Johnson's arguments is BIASED, INVERTED :

I didn't dream his words. He claims that corporations "are stealing your government".

FALSE. FALLACIOUS. INVERTED. OR MOST RECKLESSLY IGNORANT. MOST HAZARDOUS.

Lobbyists have always existed.

When a government official or an elected representative is being corrupted this is precisely because HE or SHE ACCEPTS to be corrupted.

YOUR business or associates, Granger, - no matter the size or form of it - could possibly corrupt me (by money or threats or whatever) against my family or my employer or whomever, IF and ONLY IF :

1. your business initiates so

AND

2. I accept "the deal"

AND

3. (1) and (2) is followed by a crime (by me alone or the two of us)

This requires A HANDSHAKING, after communication **AND THEN** A CRIME.

Would that mean that SOMEONE (Mr. Johnson I assume ?) could be deemed knowledgeable, justifiable, moral, and legitimate enough to DECIDE A PRIORI WHAT YOUR business CAN OR CANNOT propose me to do ?

Under WHICH assumptions WHEN THERE ISN'T any crime (in facts) committed ?

Allowing ANY governmental institution, with THE FORCE of law on its side, to decide, IN ADVANCE, which communication is or isn't acceptable between two other parties on the grounds of (supposedly) HIGHER MORALITY is the best way to go STRAIGHT INTO TYRANNY.

Sure, even with ALL THE GOOD INTENTIONS of the world, they might start by making illegal the "indecent proposals" only ... but it will INEVITABLY DRIFT towards making illegal ...

... WHATEVER THE STATE DECIDES is a communication that could THREATEN its (ever growing) power over the people.

TYRANS NEVER ACCEPT opposition, by definition.

Look at what THE SUPREME COURT considered "constitutional" (by NOT opposing it) : NDAA.

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr Johnson.

I hope it makes better sense to you, Granger.

Cordially and Sincerely,