THERE ARE MANY complicated aspects of the campaign-finance case the Supreme Court is poised to hear Wednesday, but the issue boils down to this: Will the justices let corporations spend unlimited amounts to elect or defeat candidates for federal office? This course of action would be unwise and unnecessary to resolve the dispute at hand.
One of my biggest complaints is how the conceptual rights of corporations have expanded in the past few decades to allow these “fictional” citizens to in effect become freer of constraints than actual flesh and blood citizens.
I have never bought into the legal fiction of free speech rights for corporations. To me that is just a legal fiction to allow the “heads” of these corporations to bypass the legal restrictions placed on actual “people” when it comes to limitations on “political speech”.
And now it looks as though the Robert’s Court wishes to review the limitations that have been placed on this fictional person’s rights by preceding courts for the past century. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…It sounds like judicial activism to me…Pretty ironic isn’t it?