The activist portion of the Supreme Court got this wrong. This is the worst thing to happen to the average citizen since they stopped making the P.B. Max. From the perspective of a regular guy, the 1st Amendment should be interpreted based on the perceived intention of our forefathers. I believe our forefathers were most protective of the oppressed. I consider the frame of mind in which our rights were created.

Redcoats come in many colors.

This is not a simple or trivial issue. Our Constitution protects the inalienable rights of individuals, not corporations. George Washington specifically warned about the dangers of extending human rights to corporations. This issue is a good example of what worried him.

A corporation is a thing. It is not a person or group of people. It is an economic construct that enjoys specific legal benefits and privileges that individuals do not enjoy. If we extend inalienable human rights to a corporation, on top of its privileged legal status, then we elevate corporations above the status of the individual. Therefore, any specific benefits and privileges enjoyed by corporations must be offset by specific restrictions and limitations.

From the practical standpoint, some folks argue that corporate sponsored advertising would not unduly influence the wise American voter. Perhaps, but that isn't the main concern. The main concern is whether or not the threat or promise of millions of dollars in future advertising support would unduly influence our wise American legislators. Now, seriously... do we even need to go there?

This ruling may be one small step for unrestricted speech but it is one giant leap for oligarchy. In my opinion, SCOTUS got this one wrong.

"We can do this."

The price of good, clean government is on the rise.

Stevie, This subject is way out of your league. Stick to the banal stuff that you excell in.

I can see it now; FOX network spends millions for Republican candidates while MSNBC spends millions for Democrats. Whatever happened to common sense?

You completely missed the holding of the case. Corporations and unions still cannot contribute directly to candidates at the federal level. They can, independently and without connection to or coordination with a candidate, spend money on electioneering, such as advertising. If those who believe the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a union or a corporation, what other Constitutional rights should not apply--due process, search and seizure, 5th amendment, anything else? Should unions also be prohibited from political speech such as organizing activities? The 1st Amendment is the clearest statement in the Constitution, yet the government can't help but try to restrict and erode it at every chance they get--especially when it affects their re-election.

Proartist:

First Amendment rights should be confined to individuals only? What a silly idea and how tolerant of those who hold that opinion.

The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full. The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer, doesnt it?

There is a BIG difference between Free Speech for an individual and the bought-and-paid-for "Free" speech by a corporate institution. Justice Stevens was correct "....corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

The Supreme Court defended the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any other questions?
BTW, it's ironic for anyone to use their First Amendment rights to advocate against the First Amendment, particularly when they are employed by a newspaper!

I agree with you on this, Steve.

Stevie,

Relax, the government has no business regulating political speech. You write a blog. I assume this blog is owned by bliss-since Bliss publishes it. Bliss is a corporation. Whether you represent Bliss' political position I do not know-nor do I care. The Supreme court made the right decision.

The SC opinion states "[the challenged law] would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctionsbased on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...

The assumption, politicians that receive the most donations will also be elected, is not true. The latest election in Mass has shown, so far, the winner of the election collected 1/5 of the amount the looser.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary...

Steve - Please take ten deep breaths and think of spring flowers, and squirrels playing in the yard.
Now read this quote:
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Steve Knox: Corporations and unions still cannot make direct contributions to political campaigns. The Court did rule that they can now advertise for or against candidates without creating a PAC to do it. The only practical result of the ruling will be to allow smaller corporations and unions to advertise. And they are still required to identify themselves as the sponsors of the advertising.

This maybe K. Andreah Briarmoon's winning ticket. If she can just get a PAC to jump on her side, the council seat is all hers......

Look on the bright side... After every available second of television commercial space has been filled for months and months with heavily financed political attack ads, how will the big corps, unions and PACs meet their endless propaganda needs? Newspapers, baby! Just add a couple dozen more pages. This could be your ticket out of the financial slump. You may even end up with your very own version of "Black Friday" every other November.