For the Law Wonks

Democracy in America looks to an interesting wrinkle concerning the Citizens United case.

To break down, does unlimited corporate spending on campaigns apply not only to domestic corporations but to foreign ones as well?

Surely, the Supreme Court would hold it unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting foreign citizens from getting up on a soapbox in Central Park and stating that they prefer one candidate or another in an American election. On what basis, then, can Congress bar foreign corporations from buying unlimited campaign advertisements advocating their preferred candidates in American elections? Ah, one might object, but buying campaign advertising is not the same as engaging in speech. And corporations are not the same as individuals. These are precisely the two principles that Messrs Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas rejected in Citizens United.

Personally, I'm in favor of the Citizens United decision. I feel that it's a very, very slippery slope to say that a corporation like Exxon can't pay for an advertisement endorsing or opposing a candidate while saying that a corporation like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or The Atlantic can pay for a columnist to write an op-ed doing the exact same thing.

I recommend the entire post to those of you interested in looking at some interesting legal wonkery.