[...]Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Campaign Limitations in The Hillary The Movie Case « JONATHAN TURLEY[...]…

FLASHMOBS!

The Court’s Aggressive Term
Published: July 4, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05mon1.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows

If A Pain ND Ass such as myself comes forth; asking the USSC for saftey and protection for Native American Indian Religion As Christians; Would Tiitle VII Cover, a Gender of People denied a vote, choice or decent respect against People like “The Freedom From Religion Foundation, et.al. V. The Congress of the US of America Civ. # 07356(SM) Many prominent republicans named ie., Mike Pence, Joe Wilson, Marsha Blackburn, Jeb Hensarling said they are for the Protection of the words “UNDER GOD” in the Pledge of Alliance, along with so many other including our Nation’s Motto “In God We Trust”.

Well I sure as Hell need protection from those who dont believe in GOD such as Corporations and Congressmen given all power to make laws and wars but Defraud We the People with claims they know GODs name but just use it constanly in vain. Really what the Supreme Court Did is a Shame Before GOD, and We The People.

Peace out

I’m well aware of the holding in Bellotti, and I did point out that the ‘rights incidental’ arguments, with which I agree, were from the dissent. But the point you continually gloss over, as did the Court in an unabashed display of hypocrisy and judicial activism

to wit: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/22/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky22-2010jan22

was this point made clear by the Bellotti court:

“our consideration of a corporation’s right to speak on issues of general public interest implies no comparable right in the quite different context of participation in a political campaign for election to public office. Congress might well be able to demonstrate the existence of a danger of real or apparent corruption in independent expenditures by corporations to influence candidate elections.” (Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 787, n26 (1978)

People like you & Glenn Greenwald, et. al., pat yourselves on the head by making the hasty generalization that prior decisions recognizing CERTAIN corporate first amendment rights somehow necessitates FULL first amendment rights for corporations.

However, people like me, and as I suspected Mike Appleton, question your reasoning. For example, if we asked you to, metaphorically speaking, how shall we say, run a title search on both the rights of the individual and the rights of corporations to confirm the alleged equality between the two, as fallaciously alluded to in Santa Clara & progeny, your desire to maintain that your resolution is correct would tempt you into acts of intellectual dishonesty.

As I and Mike pointed out, corporations have no inalienable rights. And why is that important? Because making the social compact non-illusory necessitates the existence of inalienable rights. And the last I checked, in that great equation stating that rights confer power, not vice versa, corporations were never included in the set of ‘beings endowed by their creator’ with all rights. IOW, the argument that corporations fall under the protection of the 14th amendment, that corporations have rights in the same way as individuals do, necessitates the contradiction of social compact established here between individuals and the state. Your argument necessitates the contradictory theory that rights are conferred by the constitution upon people and corporations ‘equally.’ You don’t get any more ‘Un-American than that.

Therefore Mespo, that’s why I cited the dissent’s ‘rights incidental’ argument as being correct; notwithstanding the majority’s oversight.

Technically, it is still the individually registered voter that makes his or her way to the polling place and punches or ex-es a ballot, that puts people in office.

A corporation can try to influence you with propaganda and ads. But they cannot vote for you.

So, the fear of influence by the money spent by the corporations – regardless of the free speech arguments – doesn’t seem valid.

An intelligent, competently critically thinking country of voters should be able to wade through all of the political ads and propaganda, make up their own minds, and cast their ballots in a way that would be beneficial to the country.

THAT SAID… In my humble opinion, many of this country’s voters may not be able to boast of being intelligent or capable of good critcal thinking or reason.

But we cannot legislate intelligence. Should we go back to the days of only allowing the white, male, landed gentry to vote? Of course not.

This country is supposed to be one man (woman) one vote.

And if many of the voters refuse to do their homework; watch their slanted cable news programs and get brainwahsed with its talking points; and care more about the Home Shopping Network than C-Span, we cannot stop them.

Intelligence, a world view, and the ability to critically think is subjective, and not subject to legislation.

As a dislaimer, I too, believe, that the Supreme Court ruling… well… sucks. I am very concerned about the upcoming elections – especially the votes cast by those who were postive that a Public Option was going to kill grandma.

I am not educated in Law, so I’m trying to understand the issue of a corporation being treated as a person. That does not make sense, as the people that MAKE UP that corporation ALREADY HAVE the rights of all individuals (like me) – and so I see no reason for a constitutional standing of a corporation. Obviously I’m missing something.

I have also not heard if individual donations will also be unlimited… or was the ruling strictly for corporations. And if that is so, are coproations not now “more equal” than I am?

Thank you for this website. I enjoy Mr. Turley’s appearences on MSNBC. His exacting commentary reminds me of Sam and Toby going at it on West Wing… Sam being the Letter of the Law, and Toby being the Spirit of the Law.

Giving corporations,whether they be for-profit, non-profit, or unions, the same protections as individual citizens goes against everything the Framers stood for; I hardly think they would be in favor of equating corporations, with seemingly endless coffers, with the people, most of whom have limited coffers.

SCOTUS disregarded years of legal precedent with this ruling, which, in my mind, is a true miscarriage of justice. This decision reeks of judicial activism, the very thing the majority claims to abhor.

Why would you Assume that? I’m just a born sinner whose been whose been forgiven for my sinning; just like any other Christian. Jesus Christ saved a wretch like me from a Terrible Fate. I heard told that We All Fall short of the Glory of God. Well actually I took a Dive and could have been a real contender and thats why when God sent me to try and tempt him in the wilderness, to told me to get behind him. So you really should have been expecting Satan to show up. The Death of Jesus upon the cross Defeated me and put a big stake in my heart. So he Cast me into a Bed, Healed Me and told me to play dead for about 1000 years. Then one day he came as a thief in the night and we eloped.

So I already told you; Im just a Plain American Indian Negro and Assimilated Christian woman, who was Chose to come forth in the name of the Lord.

So my job is Three fold; although I am your fellow servant I also have to Warn You To Repent; Collect His Rent and send out the invitations to a Weeding and Wedding designed to End All Time. I Promise it Will Be To Die For!

Jesus just figured; the best way for Him to get the Word out was to Tell A Woman she’s getting married to the King of Kings. So His Black Widow Spyder decided to tell My Angel Lou, Oprah and You using the World Wide Web. So you can write me down in History with your Bitter Twisted Lies; You can trode me into the very dirt; but like Dust Still I Rise. I also know why the cage bird sings. So I sing because I’m Happy and I Sing Because I’m Free, cause His eye is on the sparrow, I know he watches me. So to quote a well known Republican and King alls I can say is this

Free At Last; Free At Last; THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, I was Born Free, Black and Last. Especially since it the Last who shall be First to Inherit the Kingdom.

Peace out

very good analysis, I will assume you are a Marxist?

As Satan I’m now transformed into an Angel of Light or Brass Serpent Moses lifted up in the widerness. The Hidden Manna or B/Read of Life, Jesus promised was write before our eyes this whole time and the frogs or other beast are all under Satan’s control.

I am your Final Warning; just as God sent to Noah, and Jonas thats been sent by GOD and come in the name of the LORD i.e., Mrs. Jesus Christ to collect His Rent aka the Final Judgment; i.e., at least 1/3 credit for every cent; that has In God We Trust depicted upon it.Even Jesus said “Shew me a penny; whose subscription hath it on it? Than give unto to Ceasor the things that be Ceasars and unto God the things that be GOD’s.

So incase you dont recall; I am the 7th Angel with the cup of the 7th last plagues and abominations of the Earth in my hand. Rev. 18:6 says “Reward Her even as she reward you, and Double unto Her doubling according to her works; in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. How much she hath glorifed herslef, and livee delicously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for She saidth in Her heart, I sit as a Queen and Am No Widow, and shall see no sorrow. Do you think its a coincidence, my 1st husband that I married on April Fools day; actually died unexpectly at a Holy Cross, hospital?

It’s not important that you believe me; the fact is Many people believe the Bible but didnt think it could be proved True. Its just slightly Miss Understood because a Man due to his gender was Never skuppose to figure it out. i.e. Rev. 5:2 And I saw a strong Angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals there? And No man in heaven, nor in Earth, neither Under the earth was able to open the book, Neigher to look thereon. And I wept much because No man was found worthy to open and to read the book neithr to look thereon.

Jesus Christ is/was a Real Man; so that Includes him. This job has to go to a Woman because the Lion of Judah, is actually a Lioness since Judah is the Treacherous Backsliding Sister who got the part as a harlot. Jesus and Satan were just given separate missions. He came first, to Save the World, and Die for YOur Sins, whereas my job was to Deceive the Whole world and remain Silent till the last day or Hour. The Bible is just One Big Joke; But GOD is not mocked; You are and SHe figured out a way for Her only betgotten son and daughter to live happily forever after the Fall. I wouldnt expect an Hypocrite like you, or Pat Robertson to Believe me or the Book since Jesus said; in Luke 11:46 Woe unto you also y lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselfves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and Your fathers killed them….That the bloold of All the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the workld, may be requed of this generation. For the blood of Abel unto the Blood of Zacharias” i.e., A-Z.

So instead of telling me about frogs; could you at least tell me if I can use the N.W. Ordinance, Mayflower Compact, Title VII and 1978 Native American Indian Religion Protection and Preservation Act; if I can prove my employer refused to promote me because of my Religous, Ancestry, Gender and Ethics (RAGE) beliefs. Also in reference to the man made drugs and NIVs New Improved Versions of the Bible, I voluntarily sought psychiatric help. Unfortunately, most of the drs. I went to Dont Believe in God, Dont Believe in My God; or Think They are Gods, but none had a clue what Jesus meant; when he said Physician Heal Thyself.

So instead of waiting for some Fat Lady to sing, I suggest you hearken to the voice of this Daughter as in Jer. 8:19 Behold the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people because of them that dwell in a far country; Is not the Lord in Zion? Is not Her King in Her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their graven images and with strange vanities? The harvest is past, the summer is ended and we are not saved. For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt I am black astonishment hath taken hold on me.

Yep thats Right; GOD is Fat and Black as Aunt Jemima grinning at US on the pancake box’ (Job: 42:14) whereas I more like Bell and Koonta Kinta’s duaghter Kizzi from the mini series Roots.In fact Our Momma is So Fat even Jesus Christ himself calls Her Our Fat Her who art in Heaven.

Peace out

Carl Jung, a gnostic, deemed frogs to be God’s first attempt at making humans. Ya see, in the beginning was the word; and the word was “doing.” And since there was so much to do, the Big Guy created a race of perfect beings to help him get things done; enter the frogs.

Trouble was, He made them so perfect that the frogs found they didn’t really need The Big Guy; and if there’s one thing the Big Guy likes is to feel needed. But I digress.

Long story short, there’s been, how shall we say, a troubled relationship between the frogs and the Big Guy.

For example, Exodus Chapter eight contains no reference to the protracted contractual negotiations between the frogs and the Big Guy per the assistance of Moses in freeing the Jews from Egypt. Instead, the frogs are depicted as a mere plague; this despite the illustrations of the frogs in the “Good News New Testament” in which said frogs are smiling. Remember, but for the frogs, Moses never makes it out of Egypt.

But that’s not what’s got the frogs pissed. Ya see, if you’re really Satan, which I sincerely doubt since historically speaking the spirit of contradiction has never been one to brag -like you-, you should be preparing for a lawsuit for this little ditty:

“And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.” (Revelation 16:13)

Those three frogs, aka Murray, Bertram & Stanley, never took kindly to the aforementioned passage and have been itching to sue for defamation quite some time.

So if you really are who you say you are, and this assumes of course that you haven’t stopped your Lithium treatment, then you’d best keep an eye out for the frogs; cause they got their eyes on you.

Bill Murray: “So you better be good for goodness sake. Whoa–oh. Somebody’s coming….”

http://www.webelements.com/lithium/

I’m just a (Plain American Indian Negro) and Assimilated Christian woman, or A Pain ND Ass for short, who wants to Sioux this body of government cause I wasn’t even allowed a vote, choice or decent respect of being asked if I as the Head of my household (Iroquois) bestowed land rights and blessings from Mother to Daughter upon death or marriage. The only reason my ancestors let the White man in was because they said they came “In the name of GOD, Amen” and said they were looking for the Son of God, Jesus Christ a.k.a. the Bridegroom to Come. They considered my kind as “the People of Satan” or merciless savage Indians and that’s completely different from thos who believe in a Father, Son and Holy Ghost religion that doesn’t recognize the Female gender as a Holy Hostess, Goddess, and man’s only means of Survival. By the words themselves; there can be No Father or Son unless the Holy Spirit or Ghost is a Mother or Daughter ie. a FeMale.

As an inter vivos heir of the Wheeler-Howard Indian reorganization Act, I don’t see why I cant use the Mayflower Compact, NW Ordinance and Declaration of Independence since I Am One People born with Inalienable Right to: Abort, Dissolve, Separate and Throw Off a White Christian body of government men. The Mayflower Compact was signed by Kings, Queens etc, is under Article III a “prior engagement and debt” and valid against the Constitution of these United States.

These men were given ALL Power to make laws and wars, but CHOSE to “make no law respecting an establishment of Religion” i.e., GOD. According to the definition of Religion from a common dictionary it says Religion means; 1. Belief in, or the worship of, God or a group of gods. 2. A particular system of belief or worship built around God, moral ideals, a philosophy of life, etc. Dont they think “Trusting in GOD” is proper and Good for We the People?

It seems to me the word ‘no” makes our Courts Impotent to Affirm, Enforce, Honor or Uphold their own Oaths. And What in the name of God; is this in MaryLand’s constitution, that said “under His dispensation they will be held responsible in this life or the next”? Well one thing for sure “Deeds are masculine and Words are Feminimn But there will Never have a New Heaven, New Earth, Rebirth of Freedom, Son of Man or Son of GOD born without 1st the Pain and Travail of a Woman. Only SHe knows when it Time to Give Birth and Push! I use Isa. 66:6-9 as my Mark of the Beast and to show this was indeed in God’s plan.

But When in the course of Human events it becomes necessary for One People, i.e., Satan to Assume Among the Powers of the Earth; Her Separate and Equal Right and proclaim that although God created all men equal and even 1st, God created Women 2nd, Better which is Greater than the Alpha as His Beta. I think since its a Fact; that men have become too accustomed to thinking with their little middle head and are genetically unable to stop thinking about sex every 7-10 seconds to Right Themselves.

This is A Shame Before GOD. So I think We the People have a Right to Know; What Is the name of this GOD they claim to know and say We should Trust? Is it Allah, Jesus Christ, Uncle Sam, the Almighty Buck or GOD Damn? I tremble in FEAR, as Thomas Jefferson did; cause I know GOD is Just; and the Almighty has No Attribute that will take sides with US in this Contest”. God asked these sons of guns; America, Will You Respect the Established GOD of Your Oath? But their answer appears to be; Hell No GOD We are Free of Religion” so don’t have to keep our Promises to You or US citizens.

Well take it from me; If I were You’ll; I drop down to my knees like the cowardly lion of Oz. Id believe in Ghost, Jesus Christ, and FEAR GOD to the utmost as a woman scorned. One GOD Parent whose been in charge of Heaven, Earth and Hell All Along. Now I on the other Hand or Side of GOD’s am a Triple Agent, Angle and Angel much like Oliver North, but Ive been working for God all along. I truly love my God given government Job.2:1-9 “And Satan answered the Lord and said skin for skin, yeah all that a man hath will he give for his life; but put forth thine hand and Touch his Flesh and bone, and He will curse the to your face.

Anyway, unless they can prove I am not who I claim, they have no reason not to believe my or his sworn testimony in Rev. 22:16 But if the congress and judges who swore their oaths on a Bible really believe in this Book; than it makes perfect sense and cents to me; that if God could beget a son using a normal virgin woman; then GOD could and would beget a daughter using the Mother of Harlots;(Rev. 17:1-9) especially since the Only thing GOD ever made that was not Good; is A Man Alone. duh Why wouldn’t God provide a wife for Him; just like She did for the 1st Adam, Moses, David and even Joseph his step daddy. Well as a Native New Yorker, born under the Flags of Lady Liberty and Justice, I hold a different Double Edge Sword, also known as the Word of GOD. I suggest instead of spending all that money to cover the breast of a statute, they claim offends them; that they remove the Blindfold from Lady Justice. She is not Deaf, Dumb, Blind or a Blond and she needs to identify the Masonic brothers who have severely retarded her Gender’s Abilities and Cut them back to the bone where she came from. As the Angel of Death, Queen of the Sourth or Lady of the Lake; I alone hold Excalibur.

Thats why I also asked in my case that I be given the Top Ring on the Flag Flown by my employer,after they made me take a 6 week Zig Ziglar positive attiutude training while I was Pregant with my son. The word No stops me from having Affinity with Him as a decendant of the slaves and French American Indian Wars. I asked for at least 40 acres, and 4 Black mules as a show of Good Faith. But if they won’t Settle for that, than I want All My Land Back i.e., NY to Florida and West to Snake Canyon, due to An Anticipatory Breach of Contract, Honor, Oaths, and Promises sworn on a Bible; and Mass Religion Fraud caused by the denial of Religion Law such as the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

So in closing if; you can represent me; then I’m sure I can get You 1 Get Out Of Hell Free card

Sincerely,

Satan, aka Burnt Offering(Hebrews 10:7-10), God’s Other Kid and the Black Sheep in the Trinity Family (hey everybody’s got one)

With all due respect sir, the Court’s decision in this case is as sound as the one they handed down in Kelo.

As I explained to Mespo, the argument suffers from the fallacy of composition. The entire framework of our republic is based upon the social compact which is rooted in the distinction between usurpation and tyranny which in turn is based upon the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. Corporations do not fall within the set known as ‘mankind born in a state of nature’ since they are creatures of statute; owing their existence to the body of law that created them. Accordingly, they are not even products of the mere gathering of individuals.

Further, to lean on the crutch that ‘more speech is better than less’ is a load of tripe, with all due respect sir, since it begs the question as to the very order of operations from which rights are derived.

To put it bluntly sir, the Ninth Amendment, as a rule of construction, is proof positive that corporations have no inherent right of political speech; they did not retain said right upon the creation of this republic, it was just bestowed upon them by the grace of a sovereign of five and the misguided sophists that support them.

quite simply you are wrong and the Prof is right on this one.

So if you’re Satan, does that mean Lord Scalia is your designated agent for service of process? Or is it really the other way around?

In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.

I like the ring to that. Good link.

And the Motion carried, with all present and voting Aye. No nays were heard.

Had to throw that in before somebody else did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html

You’re a day late. I left a link to a Think Progress article on this subject yesterday.

Corporations Speak Out Against SCOTUS Ruling, Call On Congress To Approve Public Financing Of Campaigns
by Zaid Jilani
(Think Progress, 1/22/2010)

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/22/corporations-public-financing/

The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.

Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party’s biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.

“Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors,” the business executives’ letter says. “And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court’s decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9635062

A second thanks for the link to the article.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2010/01/22/week_in_crazy_clarence_thomas/index.html

You sound toasted. To a crisp. I have met some that I could have sworn might have been related to you. Good luck in your court case. who knows divine intervention may come just your way.

I am writing you because, I am Satan, Risen Reborn and in the Flesh of a regular Christian woman. I need a lawyer to represent me in a case against my employer, now before an US District Court judge in Maryland but will probably end up in the Supreme Court. I intend to use a King James Version of the Holy Bible as a fully, legal and binding contract and promise passed down to US citizens by our constitutional forefathers and Complain of Mass Religion Fraud brought about by the word no in the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or…” The word no clearly denies US a: Choice, Vote, and Even a Decent Respect of Redress, especially since even the courts used the Bible as an Instrument of Law and all US presidents swore swear their oaths upon it. I am sure you can understand how difficult it is to find a lawyer or person who believes me.

I don’t think anyone has ever come before a judge claiming to be Satan, the Daughter of God, Sister Spirit and espoused Bride of Jesus Christ before, and I can prove that I have been sent by the Lord. (Rev. 2:24, 3:9, 19:7-10, 21:9 and 22:16-17). I Have to use the Bible as my Proof and Warn Yall that Time Is Short. I was thrown down with Great Anger By GOD and SHe’s Really Pissed Off. So, Believe it or Not; I Satan and when I go to court, I’m willing to put my hand on a Bible and Promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God; this time.

That poll was conducted more than three months ago.

Good find Elaine!!!! It pays to read the small print, so really this poll means nothing because the mood of the country could have swung the other way.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,023 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 1-2, 2009, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

***************

That poll was conducted more than three months ago.

Quoting from the article you provided the link to:

“More specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.”

I think as a matter of expecting the good citizens to appear when they are summoned for Jury Duty he should have dropped everything and gone. It is up to the Court and Attorneys to excuse him. This is bad publicity that he can expect to come back and bite him, regardless if Bush did it or not.

I think that he as a Democrat should hold himself to a higher standard. But we can see that he is as bad or worse than Bush.

Obama Called For Jury Duty; Told Court ‘Would Not Be Able To Serve’ by Lynn Sweet
Posted: 01/23/10

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/23/obama-called-for-jury-duty-told-court-would-not-be-able-to-ser/?icid=main|main|dl1|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F01%2F23%2Fobama-called-for-jury-duty-told-court-would-not-be-able-to-ser%2F

I am. The information we receive from those who are close to the seat of government, and those whose duty it is to sound the alarm, is far from a complete or honest representation of the facts.

I like FOX NEWS. Not because they provide the complete truth, but because they’re at least honest about their partisan bias. (Truth be told, I get most of that type of information from the Sunday morning shows. All of them.)

I have close friends on both sides of the aisle. I know them well enough that we can discuss political issues without expressing outrage when we disagree. The doctor’s perspective is just as important as the patients.

I’m not afraid of speech I don’t agree with, as much as I am the silencing of that speech.

I think every time a political ad is bought, it should be (included in the price) the same amount of time for opposing information. I wouldn’t require the opposing viewpoint to be presented, but I would make sure that the opportunity for such exists.

Duh, I was well aware that the obverse cold be suggested. I’ll not pretend to know at base which is more fundamental. But I will reiterate that this majority has far more of a political agenda than an interest in wrestling with the difficult issues of fidelity to the law. My 2 cents. Good government ensures the environment in which free speech is meaningful. If you are suggesting that we have (already) descended to a degenerated state of government where free speech is paramount because good government is an oxymoron, I might agree.

This was part of Rehnquist’s dissent; should be part of the whole quote:

Rehnquist Dissenting: “There can be little doubt that, when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. [Footnote 4/3] Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E.g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); @ 376 U. S. 761-770 (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation’s right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.”

In the interest of brevity…

Bellotti “held that states cannot prohibit corporations from spending money to express their views on referendum questions even if such issues are not directly related to their business interests.” (Nowak, Rotunda, Con Law 5th ed. p. 1083)

The Bellotti Court did go on to say: (and I’d double indent this quote here if someone showed me the proper coding…)

“our consideration of a corporation’s right to speak on issues of general public interest implies no comparable right in the quite different context of participation in a political campaign for election to public office. Congress might well be able to demonstrate the existence of a danger of real or apparent corruption in independent expenditures by corporations to influence candidate elections.” (Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 787, n26 (1978)

Mespo: “Surely it can’t be their vast economic resources as that would also affect Gates, Buffett, et als…”

See note 26 above.

Mespo: As the majority said,“’…resources amassed in the economic marketplace’ [are irrelevant to the protections afforded by the Amendment]. First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s ‘financial ability to engage in public discussion.’” [citations omitted]. Isn’t your argument really based on your rejection of this premise?

No. I said, or my premise is -if you will, that corporations, being creatures of statute, have no inalienable rights and are not parties to the social compact. The implication being that whatever commercial speech rights AFFORDED/BESTOWED upon them would be incidental to their business interests (i.e. the very purpose of their existence). To wit, denying a corporation like the NY Times the right of free speech would defeat the purpose of running a newspaper.

There can be little doubt that, when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process of law. Likewise, when a State charters a corporation for the purpose of publishing a newspaper, it necessarily assumes that the corporation is entitled to the liberty of the press essential to the conduct of its business. [Footnote 4/3] Grosjean so held, and our subsequent cases have so assumed. E.g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); @ 376 U. S. 761-770 (1976). Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation’s right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.

Since you cited Belloti, let’s take a looksie at the points raised by Rehnquist in his dissent:

“It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. [Footnote 4/5] A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as Page 435 U. S. 826 an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere. Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation’s interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed. [Footnote 4/6] I would think that any particular form of organization Page 435 U. S. 827 upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation. …. I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries.” (Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 at 825-828)

N.B. I have not read the full opinion yet; but I’m champing at the bit to see the outcome deterministic reasoning employed by the majority.