Here is a debate I did with Gene Nichol of UNC Law just after the Citizens United decision came down. It's an hour, but the issues we raise as just as germane today.
I have not changed my mind. Freedom of association is still the core issue. And since under the old law, the Solicitor General explicitly said that a corporation publishing a book would be REGULATED BY THE FEC, that law was unconstitutional. Full stop.
Whether the resulting unregulated system is ideal, I have conflicting opinions. But you can't possibly think that Citizens United was wrongly decided, given those facts.
The problem is that our friends on the left just ignore the facts of the case, for reasons I can't quite understand. Non-profit corporations have to be able to make movies, and books, even ones that contain the phrase "Hilary Clinton would make a good (bad) President. Vote for (against) her!"
I have not changed my mind. Freedom of association is still the core issue. And since under the old law, the Solicitor General explicitly said that a corporation publishing a book would be REGULATED BY THE FEC, that law was unconstitutional. Full stop.
Whether the resulting unregulated system is ideal, I have conflicting opinions. But you can't possibly think that Citizens United was wrongly decided, given those facts.
The problem is that our friends on the left just ignore the facts of the case, for reasons I can't quite understand. Non-profit corporations have to be able to make movies, and books, even ones that contain the phrase "Hilary Clinton would make a good (bad) President. Vote for (against) her!"
1 comment:
Whether it is a corporation or a non-profit is a moot point. I am an individual and have the right to hear a message of my choosing, regardless of the source. If Citizens United was ruled the other way, it would be no different than China censoring search results and controlling what its people can hear/read/view.
Post a Comment