Skip to main content

View Diary: MONTANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  CU already addressed this (4+ / 0-)

    From the syllabus of CU:

    (2) This reasoning also shows the invalidity of the Government’s other arguments. It reasons that corporate political speech can be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, 424 U.S., at 25, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, 435 U. S., at 788, n. 26, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U. S. _, distinguished. Pp. 40–45.

    Essentially, that the fear that there may be corruption is not a sufficient reason to ban speech under the First Amendment.

    So, this decision hinges on a rationale that was addressed, and rejected, by the SCOTUS in CU.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site