Sunday, January 24, 2010

Suggested Reading

I've already linked to it, but let me do it again. Here's Citizens United v. Federal Election Comissions, the Supreme Court case that struck down much of our campaign finance laws. As you already know, I agree with the result.

The main opinion by Kennedy does a fine job explaining the reasoning, but the other opinions are well worth reading.

There's the dissent by Stevens, of course. Long-winded, and angry, but certainly a detailed argument for the opposition. It seems to have been the impetus for two of the concurrences. First there's Roberts' somewhat piqued response to the dissent's claim that the majority doesn't respect judicial restraint and stare decisis. Then there's Scalia's questioning of Stevens' historical understanding of corporations, the First Amendment and the Founding Fathers.

Finally, we have Thomas's concurrence, in which he claims the majority didn't go far enough. He doesn't believe in disclosure requirements, since it can make targets for retaliation, and there's a long history of anonymous speech in our nation.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Lawrence King said...

Someone -- I think it was David Brooks -- pointed out that 26 states already allow corporations to donate money, and yet the role of corporations in those states' elections are not significantly different than in the other 24.

So much for Schumer and Frank and company who claim this is the "end of democracy".

5:55 PM, January 24, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And all the commentators complaining about it work for corporations. If these restrictions are allowed, there's no legal way to stop Congress from reining in papers and TV shows, it's only by their grace that it's not done.

7:47 PM, January 24, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter