OpEdNews Op Eds

Part 8 of Supreme Court Analysis: First Amendment Absolutism, But Only For Corporations

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 4/11/10

- Advertisement -

This is the eighth of our much anticipated installments tearing up into little itsy bitsy pieces the rogue Supreme Court ruling to declare our country the kingdom of the corporations. We're not proud, we're not tired. But there are still yet more fundamental and unforgivable errors in this opinion we have not yet addressed.

Here we confront the shameless hypocrisy of creating a super protected status for the "speech" (amounting to nothing more than the power to spend vast sums of money) of corporations, by the same Supreme Court line up that has demonstrated ZERO tolerance for the "free" speech of just about anybody else.

In his opinion, Kennedy, writing for The Supreme Court 5 (including Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito), can find no other reading of the First Amendment except that the "speech" of corporations "beyond all doubt" cannot be constrained in any way (opinion p. 19). Even requiring them to maintain a PAC as a vehicle for their political speech is too onerous of a paperwork burden he says (opinion pp. 20-21). And though previous courts and Congress have long recognized a compelling governmental interest making sure ordinary citizens were not drowned by a flood of corporate money, for Kennedy this was somehow a new invention of the Austin case that he then arrogates to overrule (opinion p. 31), specifically a governmental interest in preventing

"... the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas."

That quote from Austin actually sounds pretty good to us just as it was.
- Advertisement -

And of course his own citations to other cases which he provides for this very quote proves that this concept in law is nothing new, but instead backed by a long line of case precedents. On another page (opinion p. 27) Kennedy cites a minority opinion from 1948, where they complain that the majority in that case (U.S. vs. CIO) should not have limited "undue influence" by a speaker's "large expenditures". The point he was attempting to make was that there has always been a line of dissent, of course proving nothing more than it has always been the MINORITY view.

The precept that there is a compelling governmental interest in limiting undue financial influence over our elections has been long recognized, long acknowledged, and long accepted, except by this same grousing, grudge settling minority (indeed two of these same judges were the dissenters in the Austin case itself), but which by the unfortunate and ill-advised seating of one final corporatist partisan has now been empowered to execute their long plotted judicial coup.

So what, you might now be asking yourselves, WOULD be a compelling governmental interest in limiting free speech? The opinion cites a handful of some 20-30 plus year old cases, examples of people in the military, people in prison, etc. (opinion pp. 24-25) But of course we don't have to look that far to find evidence of Kennedy's hypocrisy. This same line up of judges has spoken very recently on the free speech rights of ACTUAL people, and let's just see what they said.

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), Kennedy wrote the opinion that a whistle blower, who was a deputy district attorney, could be retaliated against for speaking out against wrongdoing by the police. Somehow defending the free speech of someone charged with protecting the integrity of our law enforcement agencies was not a compelling government interest. But making sure multi-national corporations are not even slightly inconvenienced in buying our elections? That is, according to this same judge.

In Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), Roberts wrote the opinion that unfurling a nonsensical joke banner ("Bong Hits For Jesus") off of school property was such a threat to the foundations of our society that it must be stamped out with the biggest possible boot, a dire governmental emergency. But having our policy debate leading up to an election totally dominated by corporate special interests? For Roberts, not so much.

Yes, when it comes to actual people or real compelling interests (like stopping police wrongdoing) the First Amendment is not for us. Because we now have a majority on our Supreme Court for which only the rights of corporations are supreme, inviolable, and sacrosanct. But for more evidence of just how dreadfully bad this decision is, you will have to wait until the ninth bone chilling installment of the Night of the Living Dead Dissents.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
- Advertisement -


The Pen is a real person, and the founder of The People's Email Network, a resource founded in 2004 with the mission of making sending policy advocacy messages as facile and easy as possible. With this goal in mind we pioneered one click action (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Democratic Party's Plan To THROW The Next Couple Elections

They've Literally Punched A Hole Into Hell, We Need A Crash Alternative Energy Program Now, Assuming We Even Survive

A Supreme Act Of Judicial Treason Against The People Of The United States, And What We Can And Must Do About It

Obama's New "Improved" Leech Therapy

The President Can And Must Invoke 31 USC 3102 To Pay Our National Debts

Five Supreme Court Judges Do Da Corporate Takeover Hustle, And They Must Be Stopped


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

This only makes sure that the owners of the Republ... by Robert N Smith on Sunday, Apr 11, 2010 at 4:15:25 PM
This post makes a key point, that corporations cou... by thepen on Sunday, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:38:24 PM
Having representation for our taxation is just a f... by Steven G. Erickson on Sunday, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:52:30 PM
The Robert's U.S. Supreme Court decision changing ... by Lawrence Baker on Saturday, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:10:37 PM
No they are not anti demoncratic, they commited tr... by Robert N Smith on Saturday, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:21:29 PM
Thanks for the thumb-up Robert. American reality c... by Lawrence Baker on Saturday, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:43:21 PM