The majority did not address the issue of Foreign Corporations and Governments directly in their opinion. However Stevens mused about about possible restrictions on their activities and concluded they are now free to participate wholly in our political process. How will the con's react if a State owned, Chinese Corp. decides to enter the 2012 election cycle.
I've always thought it would be fun to argue for some sort of Harrison Bergeron, hyper-egalitarian state on the basis that income inequality necessarily infringes on free (expensive) speech.
Of course it would cost me a fortune to get anybody to pay attention.
More accurately, persons are allowed to speak as loudly as they are able.
Nothing in Citizens United would prevent the government from enabling persons to speak more loudly although as I argue here, it can probably not do so "in response" to protected speech.
The majority did acknowledge the question of speech by foreign corporations. They said that the issue was not before them and that they weren't deciding it.
Did you know Bancroft Davis also McIlheraned the commies?
ReplyDeleteThe majority did not address the issue of Foreign Corporations and Governments directly in their opinion. However Stevens mused about about possible restrictions on their activities and concluded they are now free to participate wholly in our political process. How will the con's react if a State owned, Chinese Corp. decides to enter the 2012 election cycle.
ReplyDeleteYou are very clever about shifting your position into the default position. It often saves you from the tiresome task of making arguments.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought it would be fun to argue for some sort of Harrison Bergeron, hyper-egalitarian state on the basis that income inequality necessarily infringes on free (expensive) speech.
ReplyDeleteOf course it would cost me a fortune to get anybody to pay attention.
My plan: infer by corollary my right to limited liability, apply for a Chase Visa Platinum card and find some hookers and blow.
ReplyDeleteMore accurately, persons are allowed to speak as loudly as they are able.
ReplyDeleteNothing in Citizens United would prevent the government from enabling persons to speak more loudly although as I argue here, it can probably not do so "in response" to protected speech.
The majority did acknowledge the question of speech by foreign corporations. They said that the issue was not before them and that they weren't deciding it.
More accurately, persons are allowed to speak as loudly as they are able.
ReplyDeleteI like my subtle formulation better. But seriously, thanks for the link and congrats on the prestigious score. That's a feather in your cap for sure.
the tiresome task of making arguments.
ReplyDeleteOr the even more tiresome task of wading through another 170-odd pages of Buckley progeny.