Replies

Again, you are confusing “corporations” with “groups”. Certainly groups have a right to speak collectively. This doesn’t necessarily mean that corporations as distinct entities may do so. Its quite simple — gather some employees or shareholders together and speak in the name of the employee/shareholder collective, not in the name of the corporation, and you avoid the problem.

No, you are making the error of believing that corporations are not "groups". All corporations are "groups", and some "groups" have a separate and distinct "corporate identity" ~ e.g. churches. ALL contracts, not just those between or among individuals, are held inviolate in the Constitution.

I think what you are grasping for (but have forgotten) is the LIMITED LIABILITY doctrine that protects some but not all OWNERS of corporations, or stock in corporations, from direct liability for accidents, crimes, injuries, etc. committed by officers, employees, etc. of the corporations.

Even if you got rid of corporations you'd still hve the issue of group liability and that would run right up against the Constitutional doctrine of indiidual responsibility for one's own acts.

The courts in the late 1800s were faced with a multitude of corporate schemes and an equally large multitude of slick lawyers who wanted to get around those schemes and go after owners, so the courts addressed the issue by first separating capital responsibility from personal responsibility.

Nothing more than that. An obvious, common sense, easily understood concept ~ which was ancient!

Later limitations on free speech took place when incumbents realized that incumbency, by itself, virtually insured thei re-elections IF they could deprive their unelected opponents of the funds necessary to run a campaign.

Certainly groups have a right to speak collectively. This doesn’t necessarily mean that corporations as distinct entities may do so. Its quite simple — gather some employees or shareholders together and speak in the name of the employee/shareholder collective, not in the name of the corporation, and you avoid the problem.

I couldn't disagree more.

Unfortunately, “groups” cannot exercise rights under the campaign finance laws at all, which must be incorporated under particular code. Try to solicit contributions and then air commercials under the general name of the “FReeper Group” in the next election. The Justice knows perfectly well that by disqualifying corporations she would be disqualifying freely associated groups and individuals as well. And that is the trap that has been laid for Free Speech from the beginning.

Obamaism now comes to the Supreme Court, replacing one flaming Liberal with another yet more extreme Leftist.

Next she will be ruling that the Bill of Rights is collective, not individual and only applies to States and above.

At this rate, America will no longer be the “land of the free”.