Re:Hillary and Bernie’s Quiet Email Battle
by guelo on Tuesday February 16, 2016 @10:48PM
(#11115122)
The ruling in Citizen United was that they had the right to buy ads and pay to have the movie televised. The law that the Supreme Court struck down banned corporations and unions from paying for candidate ads during the last 30 days of a campaign. The ruling found that 1) paying for TV time is equivalent to free speech and 2) a corporation is equivalent to a person for the purpose of the constitution's "We the People".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Hillary and Bernie’s Quiet Email Battle
by rayiner on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @01:19AM
(#11115743)
Right. Opponents of Citizens United would have us believe that banning the act of people (acting through a corporation or otherwise) paying to have a political movie aired is not suppression of speech. That's doublespeak--saying that speech is actually money even though the expenditure of money is wholly incidental to the act of political expression. By that reasoning the government can ban spending money to publish a book, or buying a bus ticket to attend a protest.