On The Roberts Court Decision: A Rant, A Rationale, and A Response

Posted by YWC!LI on January 23, 2010 at 12:12 pm

At its center the Citizens United v. FEC ruling is a judgment by the Roberts Court that the law cannot distinguish between corporations and individuals in prohibiting speech – so free speech rights that apply to the latter must also apply to the former. This is– to put it delicately–b.s. Make that, B.S. In a nutshell, the money soon funneled to members of Congress will approach a googol, perhaps a googleplex. If ever a case was made for campaign finance reform on a grand scale this must be it.
I offer a three-parter for your edification:

The Rant

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Reasoned Argument
Institutional Integrity: Citizens United and the Path to a Better Democracy

Whatever else one believes about the Supreme Court’s decision striking down limits on corporate speech in the context of political campaigns, there’s one thing no credible commentator could assert: That money bought this result.

Read the rest of Lawrence Lessig’s column @ The Huffington Post

The Response
The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.

This cannot stand. Sign up to protest this decision and protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

The plan: This campaign seeks to restore the First Amendment to its original purpose: to protect people, not corporations. To achieve this goal, we do the following:

Raise public awareness of corporate misuse of the First Amendment

Mobilize grassroots support to reclaim the First Amendment for the people

Create a legal environment for getting courts to return to the First Amendment’s intended purpose

Work to amend the Constitution to make clear that corporations are not people entitled to free speech rights under the First Amendment

Be Sociable, Share!