On February 3, the Huffington Post posted this strong defense of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, written by Ira Glasser, a former Executive Director of the ACLU. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On February 3, the Huffington Post posted this strong defense of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, written by Ira Glasser, a former Executive Director of the ACLU. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-101.htm
William Blackstone – Commentaries on the Laws of England
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
———
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-118.htm
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 18
Of Corporations
Gee — how much of a perversion of ALL Anglo-American law was involved in the CU case regarding *corporations* — private artificial fictional invisable **persons** ??? Duh.
Where is the list of ALL PRIVATE corporations created in the colonies / States starting in 1607 in VA ???
How many PRIVATE corporations existed in the U.S.A. in 1776-1791 ??? Armies of folks digging in the OLD archives ???
Sorry – NO mention of *corporation*, *association*, *partnership*, *club*, *political party*, etc. in the Constitution.
See the parties named in Const. Art. III, Sec. 2 in U.S.A. courts.
SOOO difficult to detect the differences between (1) HUMAN and fictional persons and (2) LEGALLY spending money and receiving money (for speech, press, assembly, petitions — or anything else — even for elections — candidates and/or ballot issues — besides regular stuff in the economy — production of LEGAL goods and services) ???
What causes the appointed party hack Supremes to make NONSTOP WRONG classifications of the LAW ???
MORONITY, STUPIDITY, ARROGANCE, etc. — being in a brain dead party hack Senate confirmation hearing — saying nothing about nothing in response to the predictable comments and questions by the party hack Senators ???
How about a randomly selected Supremes consisting of folks who can read the English language in Blackstone, the 1776 -1789 State constitutions and bills of rights, the 1777 Articles of Confederation, the 1787 Constitutution and even the 1787-1788 Federalist (with or without a zillion page legal history dictionary) ???
Bottom Line — the U.S.A. has SUPER-SERIOUS problems in the regime — due to the accumulated party hack stuff since 4 July 1776.
Mr. Glasser is confused and inconsistent in his grasp of the First Amendment despite making some valid, if selective, logical arguments.
In the concluding paragraph of the Glasser article he makes a pitch for taxpayer financing of candidates’ campaigns. Unfortunately, his appeal for subsidizing candidates’ campaign (speech) undercuts the argument for open ballot access. The point of open ballot access is to expand voter choice with more candidates. But campaign subsidies introduces grounds for rationing ballot access to candidates ‘deserving’ campaign subsidies … a violation of the First Amendment. The correct approach is embodied in the so-called ‘establishment clause’ regarding religion. The same non-intervention principle applies to political candidates. To paraphrase, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a political opinion, or abridging the free exercise of political choice;…’
Subsidizing some candidates and excluding others is inherently discriminatory. Equal subsidies, on the other hand, would offer a financial incentive to induce candidacies just for the money and thus the proverbial evil of crowding the ballot with frivolous candidates which restrictionists constantly cite as a ‘compelling state interest’ to avoid burdening the voters with too many choices. Why not keep taxpayers’ money off the table and let the voter choose voluntarily with their money and their ballot from candidates in an open field? This not idealistic. It’s how elections were conducted in the earliest days of the Republic.