Why Supreme Court Overturned McCain-Feingold
Justice Defends Ruling on Finance
WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision… “I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”
…“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same…”
Special interests and Unions have always been able to contribute via their ‘Political Action Funds’ or what ever they call it. If a group of people choose to incorporate, it does not effect the voice of the individual as Justice Thomas indicated.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Posted: February 5th, 2010 under Bad Policies.
Comments
Comment from Robert
Time February 6, 2010 at 9:17 pm
When McCain/Feingold put this out there, I and many others railed against it and it’s authors.
I’m ok with SCOTUS’s ruling. And they better hurry up on a few other rulings while the Court is still somewhat neutral, the next SCOTUS appt. will be a libturd supporting progressive type judge that will cause damage for our nation.
Comment from Gawfer
Time February 7, 2010 at 6:38 am
Exactly, John. All this does is level the playing field. Special interests like planned parenthood and organized labor have enjoyed an unfair advantage that is now gone.
Ginsberg is certainly short lived, Rob. Though she’s a screaming liberal, she will likely be replaced with another young screaming liberal.
Comment from WhoDat
Time February 8, 2010 at 10:46 pm
His statement is good in theory – a corporation is a group of beneficial owners. One could argue that this group should be able to speak its mind and act in its own best interest. However, in the real world, a corporation does not represent its owners as effectively as the smaller groups that Justice Thomas referenced. A major cause for this is the inefficient corporate proxy voting system. As many, many , many people have reminded us, it does not facilitate the feedback loop from beneficial owners that is necessary for successful corporate governance. These problems do not exist with groups of 10.
Comment from Gawfer
Time February 9, 2010 (5 weeks ago) at 9:42 am
Indeed, you may be correct, WhoDat. But the elephant in your living room is the fact that the members of the corporation are their by choice. They are not forced into an ideology without control over their own future. That was once referred to as liberty.
I belong to a labor union who frequently contributes to candidates that I do not support. I have found a way to remain a member in good standing without paying into the political action fund. If that were not possible, I would have resigned long ago.
You see, if there is an individual within the corporation that does not subscribe to the corporate philosophy, they have the free will to remove themselves from said corporation.
Thomas’ explanation still stands.
Comment from Jenn of the Jungle
Time February 15, 2010 (4 weeks ago) at 11:52 am
NO John they don’t have to hide it. In fact once people see how much in the pocket of many big corps the leftards are… well it should be interesting.
Comment from kris
Time February 20, 2010 (3 weeks ago) at 1:17 pm
late to the party – but I am bemused by the ruling.
Corporations are separate legal entities. That means they are not merely “groups of people” a corporation is the body corporate.
My understanding of the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Founders intended natural law rights to be entrenched.
Natural law relates to natural people. Human beings – not legal entities. Do corporations also have natural law rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?
Here’s the other thing: people set up corporations so they can do business via the corporation – they can take business risk without personal risk. The corporation can go bust – with the shareholder’s/directors risk limited.
To get behind the corporation and get to the directors’ personal assets, you have to make an application to “pierce the corporate veil”.
Is SCOTUS saying there is no longer a “corporate veil” – because – hey, they’re just a “group of people”.
I therefore dissent. (like it matters! ;-D)
Comment from Just John
Time February 6, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Some folks have whined about foreign corporations, but the part of the law that was NOT affected specifically covers that.
This doesn’t really change a whole bunch, they just don’t have to hide their money now!