"Justice"Thomas goes where even "Scalito" won't go

[deminks]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828334/-Justice-Thomas,-Citizens-United-and-Those-Scary-Gay-People?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

One other aspect of today's Citizens United decision (now in HTML) worth noting.

Remember last week when I flagged the issue of anti-gay groups seeking to thwart public disclosure of their activities? Well, it came up today again, as eight of the Court's nine justices upheld the requirements under McCain-Feingold that when corporations (or others) air independent expenditure ads, the ads need to come with a disclaimer and full disclosure as to the funders. Among other things, wrote Justice Kennedy, "the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election." Moreover,

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “ ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

Who could disagree with something so innocuous? Justice Thomas.

I dissent from Part IV of the Court’s opinion, however, because the Court’s constitutional analysis does not go far enough. The disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional....

(end snip)

Thomas the benchwarmer is his own man. Who knew.

[joeybee12]

1. No one with at least ONE functiong brain cell could disagree...

...so obviously....