This is a little late, but after hearing some more clips from the oral argument of Citizens United v FEC, I needed to vent about this. I think we should work harder to expose the apparent motivations of partisan Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Roberts.
Scalia to Solicitor General Kagan at the Citizens United oral argument (pdf):
Let's -- let's talk about overbreadth. You've -- let's assume that that is a valid interest. What percentage of the total number of corporations in the country are not single shareholder corporations? The local hairdresser, the local auto repair shop, the local new car dealer -- I don't know any small business in this country that isn't incorporated, and the vast majority of them are sole-shareholder-owned.
Now this statute makes it unlawful for all of them to do the things that you are worried about, you know, distorting other -- the interests of other shareholders. That is vast overbreadth. [Pages 48-49; emphasis added.]
Wait, how is this better? If it's really just an individual, why can't they just contribute as individuals? Why does the First Amendment require permitting such a smoke screen? This is demagoguery. Obviously Scalia just thinks that government shouldn't regulate businesses ever. Why he thinks that I'm really not sure. On what rational basis is corporate liberty to be equated (rather than analogized) with individual liberty? It just seems like he's taking the partisan Republican position, which isn't even ideologically rational.
While we're at it:
General Kagan: A lot of them do, which is a suggestion about how corporations engage the political process and how corporations are different from individuals in this respect. You know, an individual can be the wealthiest person in the world but few of us -- maybe some -- but few of us are only our economic interests. We have beliefs, we have convictions; we have likes and dislikes. Corporations engage the political process in an entirely different way and this is what makes them so much more damaging.
Chief Justice Roberts: Well, that's not --I'm sorry, but that seems rather odd. A large corporation just like an individual has many diverse interests. A corporation may want to support a particular candidate, but they may be concerned just as you say about what their shareholders are going to think about that. They may be concerned that the shareholders would rather they spend their money doing something else. The idea that corporations are different than individuals in that respect, I just don't think holds up. [Page 53; emphasis added.]
There is no use even taking apart this bullshit; I think it is readily apparent to any objective reader. So, can we just drop the pretense that Scalia and Roberts aren't pro-business, Republican partisans?
[Edit: Title edited to acknowledge the "dog bites man" aspect of this diary. I still think it's useful to highlight the examples when they arise, but I acknowledge the point.]