On February 17, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay in American Tradition Partnership v Bullock, 11A762. This is the case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court from the Montana Supreme Court, over whether corporations may make independent expenditures favoring or opposing candidates for state office. The Montana Supreme Court, on December 30, 2011, had upheld the Montana law making such independent expenditures illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court action of February 17 will let corporations make such expenditures, starting today, but only on a temporary basis, until the case is finally settled.
It is very likely the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case. Here is the U.S. Supreme Court order. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Perhaps some genius SCOTUS folk or clerk has seen or heard about Blackstone’s Commentaries —
Book I, Chap. 18 Of Corporations [i.e. ALL of the fictions regarding them — i.e. all private fictional *persons*]
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
For unaware folks –
Blackstone’s Commentaries had scores and scores of British / American editions up to about 1900.
i.e. was THE legal reference work in virtually ALL of the States and early territories in the U.S.A.
The BAD research given to SCOTUS by LAZY lawyers and super-lazy amicus law school profs is beyond belief.
Gee…what a surprise!
Let’s hear no more complaints from the right about left-leaning “activist” jurists engineering American society.
But you must be pleased with this action, Richard.
#2, if it’s constitutional for congress and state legislators to outlaw corporations from spending money to say nice things or nasty things about candidates or their opponents (on the theory that we must outlaw such activity because otherwise the elected office-holders will be indebted to the corporations that did that), why wouldn’t it be good to tell newspapers that they can’t editorialize about candidates?
Don’t you think the Obama administration, and past Democratic presidents, are indebted to the New York Times because of the vigorous editorial support the New York Times gives to Democrats? Doesn’t the corporation that owns the New York Times have its own selfish interests?
The theory that speech about candidates should be outlawed because the speaker might then cause office-holders to be indebted to them is a recipe for banning all speech about candidates, not just corporate speech. The theory of corruption caused by speech to help or hurt an elected office-holder doesn’t have a logical stopping point.
Most of the big spending this year is by very wealthy individuals, not by corporations. So should we stop wealthy individuals from spending lots of money to talk about candidates? What’s the big difference between wealthy individuals and corporations?
A few threads back I asked you a simple question, and you said you would answer it if I would answer yours. I answered yours. You didn’t answer mine. I’ll repeat it below and give you another shot.
We’ve covered this red herring about newspapers before. (BTW…why do you never cite the Washington Times, by the way…it’s always the New York Times. Apparently you have a special problem with that newspaper.) As I’ve stated before, as soon as Melaleuca, to cite an example of one corporation that is making serious contributions to a Super PAC, decides to start publishing a newspaper, it can exercise its right to freedom of the press. If “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” were one and the same they would not have been specified separately in the First Amendment.
Your third paragraph is an example of almost pathological naivete. Do you really, seriously…with a straight face…equate the effect of my speech for or against a candidate for FEDERAL office with the effect that a lobbyist for a multinational corporation would have if he exercised his corporate client’s right to “free speech” by informing an office holder, or a prospective office holder, that if he or she did not support legislation to benefit his client, that his client would spend millions of dollars of “free speech” to ensure that he would not hold that office very much longer? Really? Are you that ignorant of how lobbying works in this country? And N.B….the client doesn’t even NEED to spend the money. Just the THREAT of doing so is sufficient. That threat didn’t exist before Citizens.
As for paragraph four, you exhibit a profound lack of understanding of what is happening right now, and what will happen in the months and years to come. In the first place, corporations are in fact already putting more money into this election cycle than they did two years ago. This is a trend that will certainly continue. Secondly, we’re only in the primary season now. Which Democrat will be running for president is not at issue. Which Republican will be running is. There are certainly corporations which will put money on the table once they know who’s really in the contest against Obama. Why put your “free speech” spends into a Republican candidate who may not get the nomination? That would be stupid. If a corporation wishes to see Obama out of office, they’ll certainly be down for Santorum, Gingrich or Romney. The time to spend their “free speech” will come after the convention votes are tallied. Do you seriously dispute that contention, Richard?
And let’s clear one other thing up here. This is not an argument over “free speech.” It’s an argument over what should be PROTECTED free speech. Big difference, my friend.
So…here’s the question you did not answer before, and I challenge you to answer it now. Is a law that prohibits me from selling heroin an impingement on my First Amendment rights to free speech? Yes or no?
Answer that and I’ll address your silly question about the difference between wealthy individuals and corporations.
Finally, for those who would like to keep up with how this comprehensively godawful, anti-American, fascist USSC decision (Citizens United) is and will lpay out, check out this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/corporations-are-sending-more-contributions-to-super-pacs/2012/02/02/gIQAL4dYlQ_story.html
#4, let’s talk about it on the phone. 415-922-9779. I don’t even know your name, or what state you live in, much less your phone number or what time zone you live in, so I can’t take the initiative to phone you.
5 –
It’s a simple question, Richard. No need for a phone call. If a law prevents me from buying or selling heroin, is it a violation of my First Amendment right to free speech?
See the Book — Sources of Our Liberties edited by Richard L. Perry (1959)
— before SCOTUS went *politically correct* N-U-T-S in the 1960s.
The LONG history leading up to U.S.A. Amdts 1 to 8.
All sorts of threats and purges by the Brits in 1761-1775
— see *seditious libel* in the old English law — regarding ANY criticism of Brit govt actions/inactions.
See the Brit circa 1792 Fox’s Libel Act — AFTER the 1st Amdt got ratified.
U.S.A. economy is now about $ 15 TRILLION — Obama wants a Fed budget of about $ 3.8 TRILLION in FY 2013 (would be perhaps $ 6 TRILLION IF the Donkeys controlled the gerrymander Congress).
Will be about 140 MILLION voters in Nov. 2012.
Do the various math ratios.
Do TV attack ads stimulate the economy ???
How many folks now have TV automatic delete stuff for ALL commercials/attack ads ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_Act_1792
Some of the State constitutions have a copy of the 1792 Fox Libel Act as a section in their State Bills of Rights.
Gee – do some folks find that what certain New Age governments are doing is COMMUNIST or FASCIST ???
Gee – is there a conspiracy by the Donkeys/Elephants to STOP third parties and independents from getting on the ballots and getting ANY attention by media folks ???
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/argument-preview-the-constitution-and-lying/
Everybody lies ??? — especially in TV attack ads ???
Gee – why are those PERJURY laws on the books ???
# 4 speech = sound stuff via air in throat to be heard via ears and deciphered in brain
press = ink on paper to be looked at via eyes and deciphered in brain
How much speech and press stuff in the last year or so in the Arab regimes — i.e. in the streets — taking down tyrant regimes ???
5 –
It makes you choke on your own bile, doesn’t it, supporting this horrible USSC decision? You know, deep in your heart, that EVERYTHING your blog represents is rendered into abject insignificance by this terrible USSC decision. Who cares about who qualifies for the ballot? Who cares about who can vote? Who cares about third parties? Nothing else matters, other than who ponies up the most cash, when elections are bought and paid for by big money.
You should be ashamed.
5 –
Where are you? Please answer my question. You promised you would, after all.
But many of the major political parties are also corporations and should they be allowed to support their candidates or oppose candidates with their money.
Yoo hoo…Richard?
Ri….chard!
It’s not a tough question. You can answer it.
Come out come out wherever you are.
Don’t wait until this post drops down to the third or fourth deep page.