IrritableGourmet

He offered to dub The Terminator's German release in his native tongue. They turned him down because his Austrian accent sounded too rural (think American Southern accent).

The problem is that when you limit the rights of "Americans for Apple Pie and Puppies", you also limit the rights of the NAACP (also a corporation), the Sierra Club (corporation), workers unions, etc. Our right to assembly is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. Will some people use that right to attempt to unduly influence politics? Sure, but let them. The people pointing out the lists of corporate sponsors and crying foul are unaware that they have the lists of corporate sponsors. We know who these people are and what they are attempting to do. Corruption and tyranny happen in the dark. As long as the public knows who is trying to gain influence and why no matter how much money is poured into these groups they will fail, as was evidenced by the last election.

P.S. I disagree with you on this but keep up the good work!

Not OP, but the judiciary uses different defined levels of "scrutiny" to determine when a right can be infringed, each with their own set of guidelines. For example,

To satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, the law or policy must:

• be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

• be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

• be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

What's the benefit of giving money directly vs expanding programs like Section 8/SNAP/etc?

Immutability means nothing if the data being entered is false.