“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.”
-Justice Anthony Kennedy, introducing today’s Citizens United decision.
Precisely. The correct way to rebut unwelcome speech is not to silence it. It is to counter it with more speech. Let the best arguments win. Advocating speech restrictions is a fancy way of saying, “my arguments are too weak to withstand criticism.” Get better arguments, then!
Free speech issues aside, there is a reason why McCain-Feingold is informally known as the Incumbent Protection Act. It stacks the deck against challengers. No wonder so many incumbent politicians from both parties have come out against today’s decision. It’s bad for their job security.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
{ 3 comments }
Corporations deserve free speech? A person's rights are endowed by his creator, God. Who endows a corporation with any such rights? If the Supreme Court can "create" a corporate "person" and endow it with free speech, then I will have to obey laws that it "speaks" to my congressman. Blasphemous Idolatry! I am now a conscientious objector to obeying laws. Read Daniel and the lion den, and Elijah at Mount Carmel.
Salverda – my CEI colleague Hans Bader and I wrote an article recently on why corporations have human rights, and what would happen if they didn't. I don't know if you'll agree with it or not, but it's food for thought either way – http://cei.org/articles/2009/09/10/does-intel-hav…
Thanks for writing!
-Ryan
Thank you, Ryan your argument was very enlightening, and helps me to sharpen my argument. Of course, it is a straw man because empowering shareholders is a ridiculous alternative to corporate personhood. The price of a "share" depends upon investor sentiment, it has little to do with company profits or even viability. (I owned 100 shares of WM at $34.00, there was no way I could have known that they were bankrupted at the time. I lost all my $ and don't see how I owned anything, the bankruptcy paid all debtors except shareholders) An actual person incorporated Intel to protect himself from liability, in case his company breaks the law, (disgraceful). That ONE person should sign the contract, and be responsible for doing so. A fine levied on Intel is paid by it's customers (like the tobacco tax is paid by smokers, you can't have it both ways), Intel itself is not punishable, it is immortal, the ONE who incorporated Intel can be punished and he should know it. What did we do before 1888, when the "fiction" (I prefer the word lie of course) of corporate personhood was inserted into our law? We should revert to that, more moral and ethical arrangement, even if it destroys our current system and we have to start all over again. It is a matter of right and wrong, not of convenience. Thanks again for your kind response and consideration.
Comments on this entry are closed.