For those that have the time, it is interesting to read the comments of the Justices
here.
Justice Scalia, who voted in favor of the ruling, writes:
All the provisions of the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and womennot, for example, of trees or polar bears. But the individual persons right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of an individual American. It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no differentor at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not an individual American.
Justice Stevens counters:
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.
The red flag I see in this ruling is that now can be a voice for the "majority of the majority"...in that the majority of a group or corporation can, by virtue of their majority status in a group, have an additional (some would say
united) voice in an election process. Of course, the minority of a group can form its own smaller (
united) voice as well. In addition, the interests of a corporation (most often the right to make money) can be different than [and conflicting to?] the interests of a voter (such as the right to carry a weapon).
Stevens:
the Courts opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt [nice jab to the Republicans!]. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.
In the end...it will be interesting to see if voices balance out. Will Oprah Inc and FoxNews
more aggressively endorse selected candidates? These are two examples of corporations that certainly can benefit from political passions through increased ratings. Will this give renewed relevance to Unions in the USA? I am curious to see how this plays out...and whether future courts uphold this opinion as a result.
