Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal Over Corporate Campaign Contributions

[onenote]

16. I take it you haven't read the decision

The issue in the case wasn't whether or not corporations are "persons" for purposes of the First Amendment. They are and have been for a very long time. The issue was whether a constitutional distinction can be drawn between indepdendent expenditures and direct contributions to a campaign. The answer reached by the Fourth Circuit and left standing by the SCOTUS was that such a distinction can be drawn.

Distinctions between types of speech and types of speakers are drawn all the time. Broadcast radio and television are subject to governmental licensing, while newspapers are not. A different first amendment standard applies to subscription services, whether print or electronic, than to broadcast services. Minors and students have been held to have different free speech rights than adults. Commercial speech is analyzed for first amendment purposes differently than political, non-commercial speech. And corporations, while protected by the first amendment, do not necessarily have the same protections as individuals.

It is well established that first amendment rights aren't absolute. The thorny questions are where and when and how to draw the lines. The problem with the CU case wasn't that it concluded that corporations had first amendment rights -- that was a given. The problem was that the court rejected the argument that there are governmental interests that justify distinguishing between corporations and individuals in certain circumstances, including political speech.