Monday, June 25, 2012

Citizens United Stands

So, Citizens United was upheld against a truly nonsensical challenge from some idiots in Montana. The basis of the challenge was not the merits of Cit U, but rather the supremacy clause.

Some analysis of the case...

The decision, which came down today...  Amazing that those same folks who are going to whine about overturning precedent on HCR are willing to retry Cit U on the merits here, when the only question is actually the supremacy clause.  For the left, "judicial activism" is just when a judge does something they don't like, and they can't think of a real reason.

The Amicus Brief that I signed onto, regarding Cit U.

Interestingly, Chief Justice Roberts specifically referred to our Amicus Brief, BY NAME, in oral argument. (See p. 69, lines 19 and following). Winning!

And, since people seem to have forgotten it, the 1st Amendment. The most relevant part is highighted, for the willfully blind among us.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That whole freedom of association thing, there.  It's not the key point that corporations are "persons."  The key point is that people can associate in any way they want, and that association can be active politically, without permission from haters of liberty like Justice Breyer and company. 


Scott E said...

Can we get a clarification on what judicial activism is for the right? Big ol' generalities about how a certain group thinks can make this otherwise lovely blog seem a bit cable news-y.

Dirty Davey said...

A corporation is not merely an association--it is an association which has been granted the privilege of limited liability.

Can we as a society require ANY limits on a corporation's behavior in exchange for this privilege? If so, then is it possible that a limitation on political activity is a reasonable constraint to exchange for the limit of liability?

If we cannot demand anything in exchange for limited liability, then shouldn't everyone be able to benefit from such a limit whether they have formed a corporation or not?

Dirty Davey said...

(Personally, I would be happy to extrapolate from the rules that are being advocated for unions. For a publicly held company, every shareholder should be given the opportunity to opt in to political activity. Take the amount spent by the corporation on political activity, divide it by the number of shares held by those who opt in, and then grant an equivalent per-share special dividend to those shareholders who opt out.)

Patrick said...

Government imposes thousands of limitations on corporations. It's called "securities law". It isn't that government can't pass laws regulating corporations. It simply can't infringe on speech.