How Citizens United Twisted Decades of Legal Precedent to Empower Corporations

[alp227]

In its now notorious 5–4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations cannot be prohibited from using their treasury funds to advocate the election or defeat of candidates for public office, the US Supreme Court relied on the premise that corporations are no different than people; since the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to financially support or oppose political candidates, all corporations are equally protected. “The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his decision on behalf of the majority, noting that “this protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech.” Kennedy emphasized this precedent by citing twenty-three separate rulings, dating back to 1936. But a closer look at the cases in question reveals the flaws in his analysis. Of the twenty-three cases, twenty-two actually stand for an entirely different principle: not that all for-profit corporations enjoy the same First Amendment rights as individuals, but rather that they should extend only those corporations that are vehicles for producing and distributing products thar independently enjoy the broadest free speech rights, such as books, newspapers, journals, films and other artistic and educational entities. Those entities are referred to as “media corporations.”

Of the numerous cases Kennedy cited, all but one involved media corporations. Eight were newspapers and journals sued for defamation or invasion of privacy; one was a book publisher charged with violating New York’s “Son of Sam” law (which bars criminals from profiting from their crimes); one involved a Florida statute requiring newspapers that oppose or endorse candidates for public office to give them or their opponents space in their pages to reply; four involved TV stations; and four involved film and theatrical companies accused of exhibiting obscene materials. The other four involved a mélange of issues, including the zoning of porn movie houses. The common thread weaving all these cases together is that they all involved corporations that produced material intrinsically protected by the First Amendment.

Full article: http://www.thenation.com/article/43146/how-citizens-united-twisted-decades-legal-precedent-empower-corporations

[midnight]

1. Citizens United did not have any legal standing, but they had money.

They purchased a desirable outcome.

[elleng]

3. No 'standing?'

They produced the film, didn't they?

[Demeter]

2. PNAC Strikes Again