The "Rights" of Big Business

So I was watching a news podcast on the web yesterday and it got me thinking:: Why have we allowed businesses in the USA to think that they have the same rights as individuals?

Let me back track a step. The report I was watching was regarding the 4 tobacco companies that are suing the government over the warning labels that have been imposed on their products.

First off, I am one of those individuals that believes that cigarettes and other tobacco products, which have been proven to cause/exacerbate a variety of illnesses including, but not limited to lung cancer, really should be counting their lucky stars that they have not been outlawed altogether for all of the extra chemicals and toxic crap that they routinely add to a nearly harmless plant in order to make it more addictive... and more deadly. I really have a hard time understanding why the government and other society leaders still try to insist that Marijuana, another plant that is popularly rolled into tubes of paper and smoked (and with a lot less dangerous side-effects) is somehow infinitely more evil than this industry giant that has more than out lived any usefulness it once had.

Secondly, I have an issue with warning label regulation. Any company that is not being led by idiots will impose such things on themselves in order to protect the company from lawsuits from users who choose to use their product and then regret doing so- if the government has to step in and insist on it then the company was doomed to failure and bankruptcy to begin with. Of course, the government's involvement is meant to protect it's citizens from falling victim to dangerous products, but honestly, I don't know why they bother- most people don't bother to read those warnings anyway and most of the ones who do either wouldn't use the product to begin with, or are looking for material for their stand-up comedy act.

That being said, what truly upset me about this lawsuit was the insistence in the wording that the companies themselves had a right to free speech that was being impinged upon. Anyone one who has read the Constitution of the US and it's bill of rights should be able to tell you that they refer to INDIVIDUALS not businesses, churches or other organizations. Basically what this means is that if the owners of these companies hold a press conference and claim that their product is actually good for you, their is really nothing that anyone can do about it, but if the government determines that the products they produce are harmful (which, of course, they have... repeatedly) then the government is required by it's mandate from it's citizens to impose a warning label on the product itself warning users of the dangers of use and the company can't do anything about it. That is what the law says.

However, there is precedent for their claim- as annoying as it may be to me- thanks to the ruling some years back that campaign contributions, both from an individual AND from a company, was protected free speech. I still don't understand why anyone would hide behind a company name while making a campaign contribution anyway, but personally, finding out that any candidate for an elected position accepted contributions from a large company generally translates in my mind to they don't need my vote.