Nov. 4th, 2010

blorky: (Default)
From a recent interview:

"Do you think the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court contributed to the Republicans winning in such numbers? They were awash in money through all these front organizations that were put together after that decision.


This might surprise you. I think the Court got it right. Here’s why. Nobody has been able to answer this question—Elena Kagan, my friend who argued the case, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, or anybody else who is vehemently opposed to it. What is the difference as a matter of law and theory between what they did as Citizens United and what Rachel Maddow does on MSNBC or what I do on CNN. It all could be defined as corporate speech. I never believe in limiting speech. I have an enormous issue with the lack of disclosure.

Well, you do sort of have a track record of seeing corporations as criminals so therefore I guess you could argue that they should then have the same free speech rights as a person as well. But I have a hard time thinking of a corporate interest as a human one.

But if you want to say no in the Citizens United case then do you tell The New York Times not to print its editorial page?"

Profile

blorky: (Default)
blorky

January 2014

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728 293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 06:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios