General Discussion

you were unaware of the fact that that the NAACP was protected from being sued for organizing a boycott, that the NY Times was protected against being prevented from publishing the Pentagon Papers, that Hustler Magazine was protected against a suit for infliction of emotional harm by Jerry Falwell, etc. etc. etc. The Supreme Court first recognized that an "artificial" corporate entity could have rights under the constitution as far back as tthe early 1800s when Justice John Marshall recognized that the constitutional "contract" clause applied not merely to contracts between natural persons, but also contracts to which a corporation was a party.


And in response to your snark, no, I don't support, in the context of poltiical spending, the CU holding that there is no distinction between the regulation that can be applied to a corporation and the level of regulation that can be applied to individuals. The law has long drawn distinctions between types of speech and types of speakers. CU was wrong in that it failed to acknowledge that there substantial governmental interests for drawing the distinction that was drawn in the legislation that was at issue in that case. However, I do support the NY Times, DU, MoveOn, the NAACP, the Democratic National Committee, and other "corporate" entities having first amendment rights. Apparently you don't.