SCOTUS overturns 100 years of speech law

[kandrathe]

Because corporations aren't people, they're a network for business(es). Secondly, as my previous point doesn't quite line up with U.S's laws, resources aren't equal, nor should the be, but the difference between a corp. and personal resources, as well as laws governing such, are so large that even Warren Buffet can't influence an election in kind now via money (and disenfranchisement does carry legal weight). Lastly, there's consensus of published information on what happens on the corrupting influence on large amounts of money in politics.

Actually, no. If a person creates an organization other than a corporation, like a sole proprietorship, a limited partnership, etc. Then all the profits of the organizations are distributed to the owner(s). The owner would be free to spend any amount of that money to engage in speech (make a movie, write a book, pay for advertising). Corporation is a legal maneuver often used to shield an individual from liability, and also to better distribute and keep income streams separate. I have a privately held corporation that I use for my work and I'm the only owner, and the only employee (however I could have partners, or employees if I wanted). A customer through litigation could possible drive my corporation bankrupt, but not me personally. I have in the past drawn a salary from my own corporation, but I don't currently.

Up until this decision (and I believe this still isn't resolved) Unions had the same restrictions as corporations.

Unions were permitted to use their union dues for voter education, and "get out the vote" drives, which were thinly veiled electioneering. But, soft money contributions were prohibited, and hard money had to be tracked through PAC's just like corporations.

Network's 1st amendment right, to the best of my knowledge, applies to their employees and did not permit them to run electoral campaign ads (nor would they and keep any shred of creditability they attempt to save).

Not true. Newspapers routinely endorse candidates, and NBC and MSNBC obviously sided with Obama, amongst other numerous media outlets. Even Rupert Murdoch came out supporting Obama. If the employees can speak, and represent the selection of their corporations (e.g. Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow, Keith Olbermann (check out this clip mere hours before the MA special election). Could MSNBC decide to fire Keith Olbermann, and replace him with Sarah Palin if they wanted to slant to the other side? You bet! In the oral arguments in this case, the lawyers for the FEC admitted that the McCain/Feingold could also be interpreted to limit the publication of a book 30 days (primary) or 60 days (general election) which could be considered critical of candidates. Not only that, but punishable as a criminal felony with jail time. Isn't that censorship?

Both. As our politics are executed by human beings with all the emotions that come with that condition, even a pure politician would have a beholden feeling to anyone that places them in power, and the more of an impact that entity makes (real or imagined) the stronger the emotion is felt.

<strike>I'm not sure what your point is here.</strike>Ok, I re-read it enough. You are saying that the more I spend, the more affection I can buy. I agree that buying and selling political power should be discouraged. However, the interpretation is that freedom of speech isn't limited to only individuals, nor only individuals of limited means. Corruption, bribery, graft, and quid pro quo to some extent are still illegal. What McCain-Feingold was attempting to curb was the amount of campaign money diverted into political speech in the form of advertising, and such, prior to elections. It exempted media companies, and forced others (corps, and unions) to form PACs which have strict FEC monitoring and oversight. It had also had the effect of limiting free speech.<blockquote>If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the anti-distortion(Austin) rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. -- CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION -- Page 40</blockquote><blockquote>Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 48–49 (“[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment”); -- CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION -- also page 40</blockquote>I'm still in the process of the full reading of this... {begin with 3 cups of strong coffee to suppress yawns leading to somnambulism}.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf