Display:
Perhaps the most interesting comment in what may be the same session that you are referring to actually came from Ruth Bader Ginsburg
MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include -

MR. OLSON: Now, Justice -

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?

In other words
Justice Ginsburg created a poison pill by putting on notice any Supreme Court majority that overturns the lower court decision:  your actions will allow foreign funding for U.S. campaigns.  Any foreign entity could simply exercise an existing or newly acquired ownership position in a U.S. corporation to demand services from that corporation's latest wholly owned candidate.
Which might be just the thing to use in a campaign to push for reform of the whole process.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 05:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good observation and great point for Ginsburg.  
by paving on Sat Dec 12th, 2009 at 02:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series