Skip to comments.SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK: Alito takes on critics [Election/First Amendment/Citizens United Case]
Posted on 11/17/2012 2:37:43 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is defending the court's 2010 decision in the Citizens United case that helped fuel hundreds of millions of dollars of spending by independent groups in the just-concluded campaign season.
Alito told roughly 1,500 people at a Federalist Society dinner this week that the First Amendment protects political speech, whether from an individual or a corporation. His comments to the overwhelmingly conservative and Republican crowd were part of his broader analysis of arguments put forth by the Obama administration in recent years that Alito said would curtail individual freedoms in favor of stronger federal power.
He said opponents of the 5-4 decision have conducted an effective, but misleading, public relations campaign by stressing that the court extended free speech rights to corporations.
He even praised opponents' pithy cleverness, noting such bumper stickers as "Life Does Not Begin at Incorporation."
But Alito rattled off the names of the nation's leading newspapers and television networks, all owned by corporations and possessing acknowledged rights to print and say what they wish about politics and government.
"The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations," he said. "Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech."
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
If Obamugabe gets to replace one of those men, the deterioration of the Republic, such as it is, will accelerate to "ludicrous" speed.
“Alito rattled off the names of the nation’s leading newspapers and television networks”
It astounded me how little people consider this aspect. There is the fact that newspapers and tv news are also protected by the free press clause. But imagine if Congress passed a law demanding all news outlets be licensed on the condition they are nice to the government, that they must report all their investors, that no one may invest in them over a certain amount, that they not cover election news within a month if the election, etc. Is there any possible way the left would call thus anything other than violation of free speech, unless it only applied to Fox?
This was driven home to Mr by the coincidence of the Citizens United movie coming out in the same election as Stone’s “W.” Why was one permissible but not the other? No reason whatsoever.
It’s unfortunate that the conventional legal fiction that corporations are individuals drives libs insane. The argument is actually very simple and very compelling. It is the speech of the people who form corporations and donate to corporations whose speech was curtailed. That’s obvious enough if I were to propose banning Pixar, or some similar entertainment behemoth from making a political movie. But for some reason a switch is flopped when we talk about smaller outfits like Citizens United, sending the current off on a tangent.
I like the fact that I can contribute, as I did this election cycle, to a group other than the RNC.
Until it makes serious changes in its organization and philosophy, I will never give the RNC one penny.
I donate to PACs that directly represent the candidate of my choice.
Give to the RNC and they use the money to support people that I would not let in my house.
Like the stupid stunt they pulled in MD in 2010.
Oh, I quit giving to the RNC after ‘04, I think. We DO give to PACs, individual candidates, and conservative groups like Heritage.
The party apparatus? Nope.