Justice Thomas explains Citizens United

Justice Thomas explains the logic (and wisdom) of the majority in the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. It amazes me that BHO - a constitutional law professor - and four justices on the Supreme Court cannot follow this.j (The answer of course is they believe the Constitution is meaningless. Is there another explanation?)



Here is the heart of his explanation:


"Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

He also points out that the reason for government regulation of corporate involvement in Politics has a dark side. Here is his comment:

"He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

It is good that this article appeared in the NYT today. Sometimes they do the right thing!