Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
You want me to spell this out? here it is. Stevens' position is "a corporation is a corporation is a corporation" - out for one purpose, out for all. So if one kind of corporate speech can be banned because of appearance of corruption that means every kind can be banned for the same reason. That is a very simplistic view, and the one you are advocating.
|
You're oversimplifying. Justice Stevens spells out his case relatively plainly right out of the pen (emphasis mine):
Quote:
The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante , at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.
The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
|
Let's look at the comments side-by-side:
Reversed law? Present in both SotU and Dissent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by President Obama
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dissent
The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past.
|
Foreign special interests? Present in both SotU and Dissent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by President Obama
-- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dissent
Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.
|
So, with evidence this time, what President Obama said is reflected plainly in the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens, and as such is not so easily dismissed as "wrong". Let's stop pretending that Stevens and Obama stand apart on this because very clearly they do not. Justice Stevens of course has much, much more to say on the issue, but President Obama's comments are mirrored in the dissenting opinion.