5 Comments

1. GaryP says:

   6 February 2010 at 19:11

   I think that this hysteria over the recent Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment Rights for corporations is a little silly. We seem to have no problem with the statist special interest groups (ACORN, unions, enviromentalists, most NGO’s, most “charities”) being part of the political landscape. We often even pay them to influence our elections (i.e. government grants paying ACORN to sign up fradulent Democrat voters).
   Why can’t businesses try to influence the political process.
   Get the government out of controling the economy and back to providing the essential services (defense and law enforcement, some infrastructure, etc.) and businesses would have very little reason to spend money on political speech.
   • Edward Harrison says:

     6 February 2010 at 19:17

     That’s utter rubbish, Gary. If you look at any country at any point in time businesses have a LOT of reason to spend money on political speech. This is the reality – always has been and always will be.

     Which specific rights and privileges corporations should have is a separate issue.
2. Vangel says:

   7 February 2010 at 17:12

   How typical of the anti-liberty folks who like to have the shots being called by a political elite bought off by rent-seekers making back-room deals. Because they can’t attack the Supreme Court by the use of logic and reason they resort to narrative.
   • Edward Harrison says:

     7 February 2010 at 17:23

     I wouldn’t say the Supreme Court made the wrong decision here given the connection between free speech and money.

     I will say this – as Glenn Greenwald has said – those arguing against the Supreme Court based merely on outcomes are wrong. The outcome of the case – as parodied here – is irrelevant. This is a LEGAL case only on whether the specific law is constitutional and whether this produces ‘good’ or bad’ outcomes should have zero influence on how the case was adjudicated. So, just because this might increase corporate influence, there is nothing wrong with the ruling.

     Personally, I don’t have enough information about legal precedent to make a determination one way or the other. So I am fairly ambivalent about the outcome. However, if the use of money is curtailed in any way in the political process, it is bound to curtail the speech that goes along with that. So free speech IS an issue here.

     On the other hand, it does seem clear that the Supreme Court did NOT have to take this case on. They did so because of judicial activism. Nor is it clear that the ultimate verdict is the right one from my understanding of the facts. I’ll leave that to the lawyers.
     • Vangel says:

       8 February 2010 at 20:02

       Personally, I don’t have enough information about legal precedent to make a determination one way or the other. So I am fairly ambivalent about the outcome. However, if the use of money is curtailed in any way in the political process, it is bound to curtail the speech that goes along with that. So free speech IS an issue here.

       The precedent should be the Constitution. It makes it clear that political speech is to be protected from the government and as such the Supreme Court made a good decision.

       What the US needs is to have the court go back into previous rulings and get overturn those that have allowed the federal government to take power that was never delegated to it and belongs to the states and the people. The entire line of reasoning that goes with the Interstate Commerce Clause needs to be reviewed once again and most of the rulings need to be overturned. The clause only allows the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states, which was taken to mean that it had the power to ensure than no tariff barriers existed between states. A series of rulings have made that into a joke and have allowed the government to regulate almost everything. Unless Congress is careful the sates will be making the nullification arguments once again.