I've rearranged this page so that our 100 word responses to the opinion are at the beginning. The conversation we had before reading the opinion is below. Art and Sam, when you guys add your responses, just put them under mine. I've also included the link that Glover posted in this section.
_________________________________
Line: 29 to 29
After filing their revised briefs, both parties pointed out to the Court that it could easily avoid overturning those cases by applying a de minimus rule to the immediate case. This would exempt Citizens United from §441b because only a tiny fraction of its funding actually came from for-profit corporations. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points out at least three additional ways in which the Court could have made a more narrow holding. However, the Court dismisses these arguments, blows past a century of precedent, and chooses to overrule the cases anyway.
Changed:
< <
Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, etc; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and that is what upsets me most. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, the Court essentially asked themselves a question, and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907.
> >
Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, etc; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and that is what is most upsetting. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, the Court essentially asked themselves a question, and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907.
I've rearranged this page so that our 100 word responses to the opinion are at the beginning. The conversation we had before reading the opinion is below. Art and Sam, when you guys add your responses, just put them under mine. I've also included the link that Glover posted in this section.
_________________________________
In Citizens United, the Court answers a question no one asked. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld federal law (2 U.S.C. §441b) banning corporate-funded expenditures on "electioneering communications." McConnell did pretty much the same, relying on the holding in Austin. Neither party to the immediate case brought up Austin or McConnell, yet the Court directed the parties to reframe their positions so that it could evaluate these two cases.
> >
In Citizens United, the Court answers a question no one asked. The Court directed the parties to reframe their positions so that it could evaluate two previously unmentioned cases.
Changed:
< <
After filing the briefs, both parties pointed out to the Court that it could easily avoid overturning these cases by applying a de minimus rule to the immediate case. This would exempt Citizens United from §441b because only a tiny fraction of its funding actually came from for-profit corporations. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points out at least three additional ways in which the Court could have made a more narrow holding. However, the Court dismisses these arguments, blows past a century of precedent, and chooses to overrule the cases anyway.
> >
After filing their revised briefs, both parties pointed out to the Court that it could easily avoid overturning those cases by applying a de minimus rule to the immediate case. This would exempt Citizens United from §441b because only a tiny fraction of its funding actually came from for-profit corporations. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points out at least three additional ways in which the Court could have made a more narrow holding. However, the Court dismisses these arguments, blows past a century of precedent, and chooses to overrule the cases anyway.
Changed:
< <
Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment under State law to the accumulation and distribution of assets; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and I think that is what upsets me most. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, that fact the Court essentially asked themselves a question (not to mention a controversial and weighty question with far-reaching consequences) and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907 should definitely raise some eyebrows.
> >
Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, etc; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and that is what upsets me most. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, the Court essentially asked themselves a question, and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907.
non-100 word version
I've rearranged this page so that our 100 word responses to the opinion are at the beginning. The conversation we had before reading the opinion is below. Art and Sam, when you guys add your responses, just put them under mine. I've also included the link that Glover posted in this section.
_________________________________
In Citizens United, the Court answers a question no one asked. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld federal law (2 U.S.C. §441b) banning corporate-funded expenditures on "electioneering communications." McConnell did pretty much the same, relying on the holding in Austin. Neither party to the immediate case brought up Austin or McConnell, yet the Court directed the parties to reframe their positions so that it could evaluate these two cases.
After filing the briefs, both parties pointed out to the Court that it could easily avoid overturning these cases by applying a de minimus rule to the immediate case. This would exempt Citizens United from §441b because only a tiny fraction of its funding actually came from for-profit corporations. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points out at least three additional ways in which the Court could have made a more narrow holding. However, the Court dismisses these arguments, blows past a century of precedent, and chooses to overrule the cases anyway.
Central, of course, to their ruling is that corporations are protected under the First Amendment, and that they are no different from wealthy "natural persons" (except for limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment under State law to the accumulation and distribution of assets; also they can't hold office or vote... yet). The Court obviously had an agenda with this case, and I think that is what upsets me most. Whether you agree or not with the outcome, that fact the Court essentially asked themselves a question (not to mention a controversial and weighty question with far-reaching consequences) and answered it by overruling the holdings of dozens of cases and Congressional Acts dating to 1907 should definitely raise some eyebrows.
-- ArtCavazosJr - 12 Feb 2010
I've rearranged this page so that our 100 word responses to the opinion are at the beginning. The conversation we had before reading the opinion is below. Art and Sam, when you guys add your responses, just put them under mine. I've also included the link that Glover posted in this section.
_________________________________100 word submissions
Here's my submission:
I fear the functional effects of the ruling. First, I believe the anti-distortion interest identified by the Court justified the FCRA, which restricted the ability of organizations to advertise directly for candidates through independent expenditures around election times. I am persuaded by Stevens that the FCRA did not restrict the free speech of any natural person. Secondly, products sold by corporations are now endowed with newly political significance. Some money from my purchases goes to corporate treasuries, which can now fund advertising supporting candidates in elections. Disclaimer and disclosure protections are inadequate to prevent consumer confusion resulting from this.
Also, here are my case notes. Nate, if you slap yours on the same page this one won't get any more cluttered.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawContempSoc/CitizensUnitedCaseNotes
-- AndrewCascini - 05 Feb 2010
“The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
It is this kind of declaration that gives me the impression Kennedy is trying to rationalize a conclusion he already reached. He admits that the government can limit speech, but he concludes potential political corruption does not warrant such limitations. But instead of explaining why this qualify, he just cites a report that didn’t find any examples of “votes being changed for expenditures.” It seems to me that the best place to examine the potential for corruption and other effects of this holding would be the legislature. I remain unconvinced that the Court needed to overturn a century of legislation to protect this invented form of speech.
-- NathanStopper - 06 Feb 2010
I haven't read the decision yet, so in lieu of a legal opinion, I'll stick with link to a blog post by Marc Ambinder entitled The Corporations Already Outspend The Parties.
-- GloverWright - 04 Feb 2010
_________________________________The original post that started this conversation
How do you guys feel about this decision? Although I haven't read the actual decision yet, I can only imagine how the holding is going to destroy any chance this country has of holding fair elections in the future. I don't really know too much about First Amendment law, but I am outraged that the Supreme Court has forfeited our democracy to uphold such an absurd principle. If anyone ever meets a corporation, please let me know.
-- NathanStopper - 23 Jan 2010
Added:
> >
_________________________________Responses to Nate's post
Nate,
This is my first responsive post on this site, so I do not know if it will even come up under your topic. In the hope that it does, here is my answer to your open question.
Ouch! Well, I earned it.
Hey, I'll put up my reading notes after I'm done in case anyone else wants them. I make those while I sort through cases if they're long (and this one is) because otherwise I can't keep anything straight.
Here's my submission:
I fear the functional effects of the ruling. First, I believe the anti-distortion interest identified by the Court justified the FCRA, which restricted the ability of organizations to advertise directly for candidates through independent expenditures around election times. I am persuaded by Stevens that the FCRA did not restrict the free speech of any natural person. Secondly, products sold by corporations are now endowed with newly political significance. Some money from my purchases goes to corporate treasuries, which can now fund advertising supporting candidates in elections. Disclaimer and disclosure protections are inadequate to prevent consumer confusion resulting from this.
Also, here are my case notes. Nate, if you slap yours on the same page this one won't get any more cluttered.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawContempSoc/CitizensUnitedCaseNotes
-- AndrewCascini - 05 Feb 2010
“The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
It is this kind of declaration that gives me the impression Kennedy is trying to rationalize a conclusion he already reached. He admits that the government can limit speech, but he concludes potential political corruption does not warrant such limitations. But instead of explaining why this qualify, he just cites a report that didn’t find any examples of “votes being changed for expenditures.” It seems to me that the best place to examine the potential for corruption and other effects of this holding would be the legislature. I remain unconvinced that the Court needed to overturn a century of legislation to protect this invented form of speech.
-- NathanStopper - 06 Feb 2010
-- NathanStopper - 06 Feb 2010
How do you guys feel about this decision? Although I haven't read the actual decision yet, I can only imagine how the holding is going to destroy any chance this country has of holding fair elections in the future. I don't really know too much about First Amendment law, but I am outraged that the Supreme Court has forfeited our democracy to uphold such an absurd principle. If anyone ever meets a corporation, please let me know.
-- NathanStopper - 23 Jan 2010
Line: 112 to 112
than 100 intelligent words about it to replace the discussion
presently here.
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.