The opposition to the Supreme Court Citizens and McCutcheon nearly all focuses on those decision as the question of corporations as people or corporate person-hood. In Citizens, as least, there was no issue of corporate person-hood. I read the decision three times and there was no mention in the decision. It was not part of the issue. I have not read McCutcheon. The key to the unrestricted use of money, which is unfortunately not discussed in the opposition to the corporate power in elections, is in the Money is Speech idea established in the Buckley v Valero case of 1976. In that decision it is remarkable that the Court held in one place that the intent of the First Amendment was to allow the widest possible discussion of government affairs including of candidates and then, in its decision, established the money is speech making such wide discussion impossible. Here is from the Majority decision: Although First Amendment protections are not confined to the exposition of ideas, Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948), there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, . . of course including] discussions of candidates.. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). This no more than reflects our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates [p15] for office is essential, for the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. As the Court observed in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971), The Court also held that, as money was almost always and important part of the election process, then the use of money must not be regulated. Of course, to my mind, it is also obvious that the use of electronics and broadcast are almost always involved and necessary in electioneering, it should be similarly held that regulation and restriction on the use of such technology and equipment must not be restricted. That also of course, would be considered absurd. I have not seen it argued or even mentioned that the idea of unrestricted money as speech would likewise allow unrestricted wattage in loud speakers or unrestricted use of the public airways. Although the money is speech decision is actually key to the current Citizens and McCutcheon decisions, it wasnt easy to find the actual text. There were many reports of the sense of what was decided, but the actual decision didnt come up in the first few Google pages. I found it is a round about way, on a Cornell University site. law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/1
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:38:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015