Hilarity ensued. Most newspapers carried editorial condemning the judicial activism of the Court, and bemoaning the horrible impact on democracy this will have. I would note, however, that most of these same newspapers are corporations as well, but they themselves got a special exemption from the McCain-Feingold rules.
I also find the notion that this decision was "judicial activism" absurd on its face. Read the text:
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...The government banned political speech in the run-up to an election. That seems to be a pretty damn clear violation to me.
The ruling was correct insofar as a corporation can be considered a person - but that's the real problem, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI don't see why it's a problem. Even if a corporation were treated legally as an association of stockholders and employees, I don't think their right to free speech should be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the huge disparity in financial and political influence between corporations and individual people, no matter how stinking rich an individual may be.
ReplyDeleteA corporation is a collective by definition. An individual . . . isn't. How can a corporation have the benefit of a collective right on one hand and the benefit of diffused responsibilities on the other?
Personally, I find the danger inherent in letting the government define what sources of speech are undesirable or "too influential" far more worrisome than allowing corporations freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteIf the problem is that special interests (who will always be more powerful than individuals) have too much influence over legislation, regulation, and elections, the solution is not to expand the power of government to regulate speech. The solution is to reduce the power of government to hand out special favors to special interests. Libertarian fantasy, I know, but I think it's vastly superior to the other option.
I take it from your position (the greater influence of corporations) that you are opposed to letting newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets publish endorsements and editorials in favor of specific candidates? After all, they're far more influential than individual people, and in most cases, they're corporations too.