First Amendment

Originally Published January 30, 2010; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished March 10, 2010:

Last week our Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a monstrous 5-4 opinion unconvincingly¹ characterizing our corporations as associations of citizens entitled to First Amendment political speech rights, limited only by disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

The majority seems to have conflated the regulatory process applicable to our corporations with the political process applicable to our citizens. Evidently, an interest to protect is sufficient for the majority to guarantee our corporations First Amendment rights in our political process.

That said one can only hope for such a simplified, expansive, and unlimited approach for all First Amendment case law—call it the return to ancient First Amendment principles approach to First Amendment case law.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 ProPublica, Higher Corporate Spending on Election Ads Could Be All but Invisible.

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 WP, Chief Justice John Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'very troubling'.

  Our chief justice does the Supreme Court and our nation a disservice by engaging in polemics with respect to the courts recent decisions.

  It may be news to a youthful and energetic chief justice but that's what a Supreme Court justice does—sit, study, listen, and decide hopefully with dispassionate interest and without political polemics².

  It’s unlikely Supreme Court justices can successfully and simultaneously engage the role of polemic politician and credible Supreme Court justice without doing harm to themselves and the Court.

-----notes-----

1. Many have viewed the decision as an unreasoned political polemic, which further dulls our Supreme Court's patina of credibility.