Veering R-Wing: Sup. Ct. 5 all Reagan-based & think Corporations are Victims of Discrimination

Land Shark

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Feb-10-10 10:02 AM
Original message

Veering R-Wing: Sup. Ct. 5 all Reagan-based & think Corporations are Victims of Discrimination

Edited on Wed Feb-10-10 10:04 AM by Land Shark

Citizens United essentially freed corporations from a century of oppression, according to the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court. They appear to think we haven't even heard to corporate voice, because it's been muzzled for so long. Note the majority's attitude concerning whether corporate PACs founded by the corporation with corporate funds but whose donations primarily come from controlling corporate officers allow the corporate voice to enter the election debate:

"Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact
that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell,
540 U. S., at 330�333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate
association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from �441b�s
expenditure ban, �441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak.
Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak�and it does
not�the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment
problems with �441b. " Citizens United, slip op., p.22.

The LA Times has some additional observations about the right-wing hijacking of the Supreme Court by the familiar five, which even McCain's counsel recognizes as a breed apart -- even from Rehnquist -- on attitudes and rulings toward corporations:

Today's LA Times:

"All five justices who made up the majority in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision were appointed by President Reagan or worked as lawyers in his administration. {...}
In the 1970s, Justices William H. Rehnquist and Byron R. White said business corporations were "creatures of the law," capable of amassing wealth but due none of the rights of voters.

By contrast, the court's current majority described a corporation as an "association of citizens" that deserves the same free-speech rights as an individual. Because speech and debate are good for democracy, they said, the public should welcome more corporate-funded campaign ads.

{...}
"This is a different brand of conservatism," said Trevor Potter, an election law expert who served as counsel to Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. {...} To the earlier generation of justices, corporations were both powerful and potentially dangerous if unchecked by government. But in the Jan. 21 opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy portrayed corporations as victims of discrimination.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-corporations-court10-2010feb10,0,4918720.story

Corporations are allegedly "victims of discrimination" only because they couldn't dominate the airwaves in the "blackout period" 30 or 60 days prior to federal elections -- the precise issue of Citizens United.

All that blackout period did was prevent corporations from buying out the last word(s) in the last month or two of a campaign. The blackout period didn't muzzle their voice or censor their messages at all.

It's really wacky, offensive and wrong to claim that the corporations that run our government are somehow "victims of discrimination." But the reason this desperate claim is made is to claim for Citizens United the same justification for ignoring stare decisis as landmark cases reversing long histories of prior discriminatory treatment against human beings.