Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider Citizens United
Two Montana corporations are asking the court to make a summary judgment to the contrary; their lead counsel argues that otherwise, "free speech will be seriously harmed," because states anywhere could "ban core political speech." But Ginsburg and Breyer earlier wrote that the case "will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
http://www.newser.com/story/143671/supreme-court-agrees-to-reconsider-citizens-united.html
p.s. Be sure to read the UPI article too via the hyperlink in the first paragraph.
= new reply since forum marked as read
?1318992465
Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Regardless of the Empire being run by evil dudes, the Rebel Alliance was a criminal organization that existed to overthrow the legitimate (albeit "evil"
government.
about corruption. They thrive in it.
But, here's to hoping they do the right thing for once. 
For all the caterwauling about Citizens United, I'll point out that no one here has yet provided a clean solution. I'll ask here the same questions I have asked in other threads:
1) Should the New York Times, which is a corporation, and not a natural person, have 1st amendment protection in publishing political views?
2) Should the Citizens United, Inc., which was a corporation, and not a natural person, have 1st amendment protection in publishing political views?
3) If your answers to the two questions above differ, on what legal criteria do you propose to distinguish the two?
In the Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court said it could not find such criteria. So far, I haven't seen that those who dislike that decision are able to do much better. The problem is precisely drawing a line around what defines "the press."
You might distinguish Citizens United from NYT on the grounds that the latter is for-profit. Is that really the line you want to draw?
Such editorials come from its editorial board, sometimes with collective input and editing.
That is a very traditional part of the newspapers. The press. That long has been protected by the 1st amendment.
Are you suggesting it should not be?
That would be a tremendous retraction in 1st amendment protection for the press.
What I'm looking for is a set of legal properties that would distinguish Citizens United, Inc., which you want not to enjoy 1st amendment protection in what it publishes, from some other film producer? Or from the NYT?
So, far, I'm not getting it. You're suggesting that to count as a media outfit, a corporation must have a set of named editors? I'll admit that's not in current case law. But how do you see that as curing anything? Do you think, were that the case law, that CUI wouldn't name an editorial board?
Money is not speech. People are not corporations.
But people forming corporations with money to publish everything from newspapers to political screeds is exactly what constitutes "the press." And has, for hundreds of years. And the 1st amendment protects freedom of "the press." That doesn't mean just people. That also means corporations from the New York Times to film studios to radio stations to book publishers.
If your answer is that none of those corporations should enjoy 1st amendment protection, then you're talking about an extreme retraction of the 1st amendment that every civil libertarian will oppose. If you think not, consider all the 1st amendment cases that could have been thrown out simply because it was a corporation publishing the speech at issue.
If your answer is that some of those shouldn't have 1st amendment protection, then the question becomes which and under what circumstances? What are the legal criteria you propose? And why?
Simply saying money != speech and people != corporations simultaneously says too much, if you're serious about withdrawing 1st amendment protection from the press. And too little, if you mean to slice with a scalpel rather than a meat clever.
That's precisely the problem missed by most who misunderstand Citizens United.
Yes, it spent money doing that. Every group that makes a movie, publishes a newspaper, or runs a website spends money on their message. Money isn't speech, but it sure is part of publication.
If you want to say CUI should not have been protected by the 1st amendment in making and distributing a film, you have two choices. Either 1) you also remove 1st amendment protection from every corporation that wants to make and distribute a film. Do you really want do that? Or 2) you need to define the legal criteria that distinguishes the cases where you would do that, from where you would not.
So far, I don't see clear answers on that. Not just from you, but from anyone complaining about the CU decision.
For what it is worth, the CU decision does not affect laws restricting campaign contributions. Texas, for example, has an old law that bans corporations from contributing to political campaigns. All corporations. I think that is a good law. The CU decision has no bearing on it.
Consider two different corporations. Both are in the purpose of making movies, for which they get money from contributors or investors. Some of the movies they make are on controversial issues, for what they consider public education. One is non-profit.
One is: Lawrence Bender Productions, which made the film An Inconvenient Truth.
The other is: Citizens United, which made the film Hillary: The Movie.
Which of the two enjoy 1st amendment protection in making and distributing their movie? Neither, since neither are persons? And if you think one should, but not the other, what legal criteria do you propose for making that distinction?
