Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
This decision doesn't have anything to do with campaign contributions does it? It is about electioneering communications funded by corporations. That is not a distinction without a difference.
Also, whatever the founders may have thought, SCOTUS has held many times over many years that speech protections apply to corporations, associations and other collections of human beings. Austin and McConnell are the departures from precedent there, not this case.
|
Which is why I said "perhaps the decision may be legally defended." It just can't be on the grounds of originalism- or are you taking issue with that statement?