First Amendment

Originally Published January 30, 2010; Last Updated August 26, 2010; Last Republished August 26, 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.

Blog:

• UPDATED 05/03/2010 ProPublica, Contrary to Citizens United Opinion, Campaign Contribution Records Lack Transparency.

Web:

• UPDATED 08/26/2010 New Yorker, Covert Operations.

  Jane Mayer provides a mini-tutorial on the mischief our billionaires create (literally) behind networks of coordinated corporate facades and fronts—it can be very difficult to determine who's funding the "chants of our cults" and for what purpose.

  Penetration of the facades and fronts usually depreciates and tarnishes much of the good our billionaires accomplish—there's a transparent message here somewhere.

  • NPR, The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win. Fresh Air Terry Gross talks with Mayer about her New Yorker article.

• UPDATED 04/04/2010 UPI, U.S. Supreme Court: Wallowin' again in that ol' soft money.

  The Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens created a disparity between the now unlimited spending permitted by unions and corporations and the still limited "soft money" spending by political parties.

  Litigants are expected to ask our Supreme Court to eliminate the current "soft money" limitation in time for the next election—bet you can't wait.

  Of course Congress could act to neutralize the corrosive perception, if not reality, that our politicians are bought and paid for before, during, and after their "public service"² to our nation.

• 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.

2. The definition of "public service" appears to be raising money for the next election and not voting inconsistent with interests necessary to raise that money.

Wonder what the relationship is, if any, between this definition of "public service" and the recent harmful shocks to our financial, economic, and social systems equilibrium?

Assuming unconstrained "soft money" enables each political party to offset the "public service" of the other will such offsetting increase or decrease the frequency and magnitude of the harmful shocks to our financial, economic, and social systems equilibrium?