Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

Which End Of The Horse Did The Supreme Court Decision Come From, Throwing Our Elections Open To Corporations?

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

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H3 3/29/10

opednews.com



Today we resume with our 7th installment in the series body slamming the Supreme Court decision declaring our country the United Trans-Global Corporations of America.

OK, so here we go again. A Supreme Court decision is supposed to be the words straight from the horse's mouth. But the one in the Corporations United case calls into question which end of the horse it came from.

Where we last left our villains on the Supreme Court we were talking about how Kennedy, besides his own fact finding errors, had built his entire decision on misreading the actual holdings of the cases he was citing, relying instead on dissents (often his own) and dicta (stray language) which are NOT supposed to take precedence.

Central to Kennedy's specious analysis is his quotation OUT of context (opinion at p. 30) of this language from the Belloti decision putatively rejecting

"the proposition that speech that OTHERWISE would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation".


Here WE emphasize the word "otherwise" in this passage because it is pivotal and the only one that really matters. Kennedy would read this rejection, of the hypothetical proposition stated, as a declaration that corporations have unlimited and ABSOLUTE First Amendment free speech rights. The Belloti decision held NO such thing. It says here only that corporations have SOME free speech rights, subject to other limitations provided elsewhere.

And indeed elsewhere in the Belloti decision it in fact expressly limited itself to the issue of whether corporations can participate in a debate on POLICY issues in public discourse. The issue of whether corporations can without any regulation or restriction participate in CANDIDATE advocacy, in particular within 30 days of an election, as per the statute overturned by Kennedy's outlaw decision, by Kennedy's own admission (opinion p. 31) the Belloti decision did NOT "address".

Here's what Belloti actually says about the intended scope of its holding.

"... our consideration of a corporation's right to speak on issue of general public interest implies no comparable right in the quite different context of participation in a political campaign for election to public office." [435 US at 788, n. 26.]

Whoop, there it is, as they say in the legal biz. The Belloti decision concerned only whether a corporation could weigh in on the merits of a referendum on a public policy issue. To explode that into a destruction of all reasonable restraints on untoward corporate influence on candidate elections is for Kennedy to play terrorist with our entire infrastructure of jurisprudence.

All this may have escaped Kennedy's horse blindered attention in arriving at his perverse result, but it sure did not escape Justice Stevens, who precisely pointed all this out in his dissent at p. 52. Nobody disputes that corporations have at least some First Amendment rights. Otherwise corporate advertising in ALL forms would be banned. But here Kennedy engages in a unilateral refusal to read the words in the Belloti decision for what they actually say.

In short, Belloti EXPRESSLY precluded the interpretation Kennedy would give it. This is beyond reckless, it is beyond irresponsible, it is beyond dishonest, it is Orwellian, and coming from the mouth of a Supreme Court justice ... it is criminal.

Likewise, in his deliberate misapplication of the Buckley case Kennedy's citation of vague language disaproving of restricting "the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others" is no more availing (opinion p. 33) to decide an issue he HIMSELF admits Buckley did not "consider" (opinion p. 29).

This is not about seeking to "enhance" the voice of citizens vis-a-vis corporations. It is exactly because corporations have overwhelmingly so much more financial power RELATIVE to individual citizens that Congress has passed reasonable regulations on them. And over the decades the Courts have affirmed these regulations over and over, to keep the voice of actual citizens from being drowned out, which regulations Kennedy now so unrighteously overturns.

Seven parts in this series already, and are we done yet ripping this heinous decision to legal shreds? Not even close. Next up in this series, the drop kick hypocrisy of Kennedy's First Amendment absolutism as applied on behalf of corporations only.

 

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...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
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

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

Comments

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  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The decision said that corporate entities includin... by Miriam Callaghan on Monday, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:55:57 PM