[BEyng6hj]

The idea that a corporation and a person have the same rights is preposterous, and the rhetorical source of the court's error.

[cajonnmu]

As an oblique response to the two previous posts let me say that I think resonable arguments can be made for both sides of the issue: so I can not completely refute any ones position as simply WRONG.

I am being a absolutest regarding constitutional interpretation in my agreement with the majority opinion: a simple constitutional constructivist position. And, all remarks regarding ‘personhood’ and ‘money equals speech’ are not at issue: there was not a disagreement between (any) of the chief justices on those particular matters.

The only thing I can say for sure is that a ‘constitutional constructivist’ will generally be in agreement with the majority chief justice decision.

And again - "The idea that a corporation and a person have the same rights" was taken as a given by ALL the supreme court justices: why even bring that up in this context.
A quote from Glenn Greenwald
More important, I want to note one extremely bizarre aspect to the discussion. Most commenters (though not all) grounded their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in two rather absolute principles: (1) corporations are not "persons" and thus have no First Amendment/free speech rights and/or (2) money is not speech, and therefore restrictions on how money is spent cannot violate the First Amendment's free speech clause. What makes those arguments so bizarre is that none of the 9 Justices -- including the 4 dissenting Justices -- argued either of those propositions or believe them. To the contrary, all 9 Justices -- including the 4 in dissent -- agreed that corporations do have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy does trigger First Amendment protections. Here's what Justice Stevens himself said in his dissent (p. 54-55):

[Verriasana]

Here we go on interpretations of the phraseology of another written dictate.

We have to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is related to "Freedom of Expression" and not a literal be-all-end-all shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Expand the analogy. What happens when someone, say the owner of the theater next door, PAYS someone to shout "fire" in their competitors establishment?

Companies should and do have rights, but the problem is, when a company has the power of the people working for them, but only one person (or small commitee) gets to decide what they want, you enter the realm of feifdoms and other almost regal power structures.

I am not ready for the Duke of Duane Reede or the Earl of Phizer.

[amberamuletuk]

Expand the analogy. What happens when someone, say the owner of the theater next door, PAYS someone to shout "fire" in their competitors establishment?

Or get selected for a jury, stand on a corner and exercise free-speech during the trial, and see what happens.

The idea that a corporation and a person have the same rights is preposterous, and the rhetorical source of the court's error.

Yes. What about the owners (shareholders) of the corporation? Are they of one voice in political expression? And don't they each individually retain the right of political expression?

What has become standard practice for corporations is to fund both opposing candidates. What political viewpoint is being expressed?

[joeyCanada]

What has become standard practice for corporations is to fund both opposing candidates. What political viewpoint is being expressed?

Could you explain this further? Perhaps I don't understand.

I am a big wealthy drug company.... I'm funding two opposing candidates. The political viewpoint being expressed is the policy I'm trying to bulldoze through.

[WaydayNef]

We have to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is related to "Freedom of Expression" and not a literal be-all-end-all shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ABRIDGE

Taking the position of the Strict Constructionists: Where in that Amendment is there leeway to allow the government, at any level, to "reduce in scope" any speech whatsoever?

[gundas]

Again, "speech" is not vocal dictation.

It is a mode of expression of opinion or political standpoint. The MEANING of the phrase is different than the sterile grammatical interpretation.

Not all vocalizations are "speech".

Also, if the individuals of a company all have voices, the company does not have the right to ursurp that right and use it as it pleases. Maybe they should redefine "company" and indeed let it have a voice. One voice.

The hard part comes in proving if they coerced their employees to speak the same (to the tune of $2000 per person, per candidate).

You think, maybe, that politics should be funded fully by the government rather than private interests? You run for office, you are ONLY allowed the cash that the government gives you for it?

NO other private ads or endorsements allowed?

How can you make it so that anybody can run without having to have these backers to fund them?

[Gometesstem]

The question asked:

... standard practice for corporations is to fund both opposing candidates. What political viewpoint is being expressed?

The question answered:

I am a big wealthy drug company.... I'm funding two opposing candidates. The political viewpoint being expressed is the policy I'm trying to bulldoze through.

It makes not a whit of difference which politician pushes it through.

This is called hedging your bets, and is considered prudent business practice.

.

[maliboia]

^
The question was rhetorical, so therefore, sarcastic.

[BrianGoldsmith]

^ The answer fits, even so (see post #28).

.

[Investblogger]

Again, "speech" is not vocal dictation.

It is a mode of expression of opinion or political standpoint. The MEANING of the phrase is different than the sterile grammatical interpretation.

That is a restrictive interpretation

Read the words of the Amendment. There is no such actual limitation in the text that ties speech either to "opinion" or "political standpoint."

Either the SCOTUS gang are constructivists and go purely by the rule of the words in the 1st Am., or -- by the decree of the SCOTUS -- governmental types are allowed to limit speech in certain cases.

[TOD4wDTQ]

^ Well, now ... what actually makes sense?

[gomosopions]

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence...

Big corporations are killers.

Syriana, A Civil Action, Michael Clayton, The International: what more evidence do you want?

[AlexDatig]

Loft, I know what you are saying, but it irritates me when the meaning of something can be shifted to break the balance of power.



I guess when it says that "all men are created equal" that did not mean Women?

I mean, that one is pretty self evident there......

[eEwbYjOH]

Also, obviously, it didn't mean men of color.

By today's standards, the Constitution in its original form is pretty much a piece of crap.

[attlawqa]

Easily forgotten ^ (or ignored ) by those who call themselves Constructionists.

[Escamsrasiush]

^ Well, for some reason they seem to want this country to be the shitty place it was in 1789.

Go figure.

[Lenkapuppia]

I think they called it "earthy".

It all depends on how long since the last bath.....

[doctorzlo]

New robes at SCOTUS ...

*

[CVEGK7mV]

Reform group: Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas had Citizens United conflicts of interest

POLITICO
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
1/19/11 7:27 PM EST

To mark Friday’s anniversary of a court decision that allowed corporations to sink millions into politics, Common Cause, a reform group, is asking the Department of Justice to investigate alleged conflicts of interest involving two Supreme Court justices – in hopes of forcing the court to vacate the 5-4 ruling.

Common Cause officials and at least one legal expert acknowledged the difficulty of getting the landmark case overturned in this way. But in a document to be submitted to the department Thursday, Common Cause President Bob Edgar cites appearances by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia at retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, a corporation run by two major Republican donors who helped finance some of the new GOP groups founded after the ruling.

It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” the Common Cause petition asserts.

In addition, Common Cause argues that Thomas should have recused himself because his wife was the founder of Liberty Central, a conservative group funded with a small group of anonymous donors who endorsed candidates in about a dozen 2010 races.

It’s unknown whether those donors are corporations or individuals, but Virginia Thomas said publicly that she’d accept corporate money in light of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Mary Boyle, Common Cause’s spokeswoman, called the strategy “a long shot” but said, “Just the mention of Scalia and Thomas in Koch Brothers materials raises questions about the impartiality of both justices.”

According to Boyle, “until these questions are resolved through a formal investigation, public debate over allegations of bias and conflicts of interest will serve to undermine the legitimacy of the Citizens United decision and erode public confidence in the integrity of our nation’s highest court.

Reformers also hope to stir debate about ruling next week by staging a counter-event and a rally outside a Palm Beach hotel where Charles Koch is hosting a semi-annual retreat that will focus on politics and policy.

In a September invitation to the event unearthed by Think Progress, a liberal activist group, Koch said: “We cannot rely on politicians to do so, so it is up to us to combat what is now the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes.”

He also boasted that at the summer 2010 meeting in Aspen, “our group heard plans to activate citizens against the threat of government over-spending and to change the balance of power in Congress this November. In response, participants committed to an unprecedented level of support.”

Among the groups lending a hand was American for Prosperity, a Koch-backed group, which spent more than a million dollars airing attack ads against Democrats in the midterms.

On a page summing up next week’s meeting, Koch notes that past retreats “have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas” among other conservative talk show and political leaders.

“We believe it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court judge to be ‘featured’ at or attend closed-door strategy meetings with political donors, corporate CEOs, candidates and political officials, and thereby lend the prestige of their position to the political goals of that event,” Common Cause argues in its petition.

“A reasonable person would question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Citizens United case based on their attendance at political strategy meetings sponsored by a corporation that raises and spends millions to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans,” it added.

Although Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same codes of conduct as federal judges, those rules were used as a model to provide guidance to the High Court.

Common Cause wants the justice department to investigate the connections between the justices and the Koch organizations to determine if conflicts – or the appearance of them – exist. If the department were to make such a finding, it could then ask the Supreme Court to vacate the ruling.

But Rick Hasen, a visiting election law expert at University of California Irvine law school, said the DOJ appeal isn’t likely to succeed.

“Justice Scalia has refused to recuse himself from cases involving a far closer relationship,” he said, adding that there is not evidence that the justices participated in strategy sessions about the case.

“I am a big critic of the Citizens United case. I would love to see it reversed,” said Hasen. “But this approach seems both unlikely to yield the desired result of seeing the case overturned and appears to be an unwarranted attack on the ethics of the Justices.”

© 2011 POLITICO LLC