SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (136888)4/19/2010 8:03:36 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water  Respond to of 544024
 
"We need a Constitutional Amendment which defines what a person is."

I'm sure there is many a Democratic Candidate who feels the same way after the case of Citizen United v. the Federal Election Commission which decided that Corporations have certain defined political (free) speech rights enabling them to make/sponsor and publish films/documentaries about candidates with no restrictions on spending and/or time limit exclusions prior to elections.

According to a background profile of the judicial/legal approaches of President Obama v. Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts done yesterday in The New York Times, the Democrats are currently working on legislation to obviate the effects of the Citizen United Case.

The story gave no details of how the Democrats planned to conduct an end run around the ruling of the SC (by 5 to 4 vote) in the Citizen case. It would appear on the surface to be difficult to do as any specific limitations enacted would seemingly be subject to injunctive relief in Federal Court by the (legislatively) restricted Corporation.

Going the route of a Constitutional Amendment, which presumably would seek to define the "political" rights of a corporation, are notoriously difficult to enact. It will be interesting to watch the Democratic administration try to come up with a legislative strategy for the Citizen case that can pass legal muster.