Frankly, I don't think that money is an extension free speech, a view that the court has held since the early '90s (I believe), for the sole reason that it implies that a rich person is entitled to more free speech than a poor person simple because the former has more money. Sure, money facilitates speech, in much the same way that money facilitates eating, but money isn't speech the same way that money isn't food.

I'm all for public financing of elections, and I'm saying this as someone who studies economics and wants to make a career in that field.

That's too simplistic and does not accurately set out the role of the judiciary. The actual role of the judiciary is to provide a formal and peaceful process for resolving disputes, in the course of which they are required to “apply” the law to particular circumstances. Often parties disagree on what a law means, and they disagree honestly and sincerely. Laws come in many forms: statutes, ordinances, regulations, treaties and the various constitutions of the states and the federal constitution. When the parties disagree on what a law means, resulting in their being unable to resolve their differences without resort to the courts, the court must determine what the law means (interpret the law) in order to resolve the dispute.

This is not only the province of the Supreme Court, but happens thousands of times a day in courtrooms across America. As a result we have, going all the way back to English Common Law, “rules of construction” that apply not only to interpreting laws but private agreements (contracts) as well.

Within that context, determining what a law means, may include determining whether the law is constitutional. And, the parties may disagree on the meaning of the Constitution or how it should be applied in a particular case. That is where determining the meaning of (interpretating) the Constitution comes into play.

Without courts to make these determinations, disputes could not be resolved (if the parties agreed on what the law meant and how it should be applied, they wouldn't be in court). With thousands of lawsuits in play every day, Congress cannot issue an opinion on what any particular section of any particular law means thousands and thousands of times a month. Nor can, or should, the executive branch. And, the Founding Fathers are no longer here to ask. It is, and rightfully so, the province of the judiciary to determine the meaning of laws, including the Constitution, and it is necessary to fulfill our national committment to resolving our disputes peaceably through a formal system of justice.

[snicker] The lib House Dems have the answer. Liberal media newspapers aren't enough; once they have been taken over, ahem, bailed out, then they'll be even less likely to be pesky critics of Dems in Washington.

Absolutely. “Due process” is one thing (fulfilling its almost-exclusive role as an appellate court); what is called “due substance,” instead, is not the role of the Supreme Court nor any other, to say what the law “is” or more, “should be.” The courts have no right to arrogate legislative (or executive) power to themselves, the judiciary. That has sadly been a problem for ages, and in modern times (since the later 1930s) has been notorious, with liberal judicial activism. This pleases liberals, as to them the ends justify whatever means may be used to get what they want, but is dangerous as well as wrongful. And of course, many of us who have outgrown our more childlike, naive liberalism will puzzle the rest when we correctly blame them if the courts ever were to engage in conservative judicial activism (after decades, to today, of the opposite): It is the Left which demanded the breaching of the levees properly constraining the judiciary, and it is the Left that can be blamed if the released leftward flood of judicial activism were to shift course momentarily to rightward instead.

That is correct. Congress (the only federal branch that would possibly have such power) has no such power; this is expressly prohibited. Freedom of speech especially means political speech, of course, and envy of others' deep pockets in no way legitimizes the wrongful curtailment of the right of free speech simply because it may make some people feel good (or just assuage their envy and anger).

#2 is more bad rules to paper over the cracks in the first set of bad rules. Campaign contribution limits are a bad idea that puts government in the untenable business of trying to meter first amendment rights. That immediately steers us into a series of quicksand bogs over who the “real” givers “really” are and whether their intentions are “properly worthy” and so on.

There's no need. All these worries about the “wrong” voices crowding out the “citizens'” voices are simply a failure to recognize how citizens' voices actually sound.

And, if the SC doesn't interpret the Constitution, who does? You? It's not like the document is crystal clear, as this thread points out.

No insult intended, but when we first encountered each other here at TMV we had some interesting and positive discussions. Since then you have moved five or six neighborhoods to the Right. Speaking only for myself, I liked our discussions better when you were a center right moderate and didn't take outrageous wingy positions like the Supreme Court shouldn't interpret the Constitution. That the SC interprets the Constitution is how it's been for 200 years. Geez, get used to it already…or pass a Constitutional Amendment to change it (sorry, couldn't resist). .

Where in the constitution does it say that anyone, besides natural persons who are citizens of the states have any constitutional rights?

The proper question is, where is Congress empowered to restrict freedom of speech in any way?

” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

First, the SC interprets the Constitution,

In my opinion that was the first huge bluder of our nation, accepting like sheep that the Supreme court had this power which they assigned themselves unilaterally. The Supreme court should uphold the laws not interpret them.

Constitutional Amendment is just another “illogic”, red herring, pie-in-the-sky, rationalization…whatever name you want to give it.

To me its the rule of law. Nothing less.

First, the SC interprets the Constitution, not you or I. It is possible to look at the intent of the framers and determine that the Bill of Rights was intended, from inception, to protect people, with lesser protections for artificial entities. If the SC were to so find…as they have done in the past…it could interpret the Constitution so that corps. would not have the same speech rights as natural persons. That would not be a particularly unusual ruling. If they did, there would be no need for any amendments.

More importantly, once the SC rules, as I believe it will, to give full speech rights to corps.(unions actually are not involved in the litigation as far as I know), there will be no chance of passing any Constitutional Amendment not blessed by the corporations, who will quickly and powerfully turn America into a corporate oligarchy. What congressperson would vote for such an amendment in the face of the intrinsic extortion the corporations could visit upon them?

Constitutional Amendment is just another “illogic”, red herring, pie-in-the-sky, rationalization…whatever name you want to give it. Once the corporate oligarchy takes over (and, I do not believe it is hyperbole to call it that), nothing happens without their blessing…individual citizens be damned.

If that's what you want America to become, you're welcome to your opinion. I do not share it.

Corporations and unions do not speak for their shareholders/members “as one”; they speak for the power, greed and influence interests of the corporation or union.

In other words, corporate and union leaders work exactly like political leaders. Though nominally accountable to the constituents who can remove them from their jobs, they make most decisions based on which wheel squeaks the loudest.

I have zero sympathy for people who've bought stocks in corporations, don't bother to vote their rights, and then complain their interests aren't being represented.

Leonidas – There is a serious logical flaw (or leap) in your position. To assume that corporations or unions speak for their shareholders/members “as one” is a false assumption. In the case of corporations, the primary shareholder influence comes not from individual shareholders but from other corporate interest holders including banks, 401(k) managers and mutual fund managers. To assume that this compilation of corporate elites (just look at their boards…how many ordinary “people”?) is seeking out the political policy preferences of every individual with some interest in a 401(k) or mutual fund is not within several light years of being true. I think you know that. As for unions. Their penchant for ignoring the interests of their members for all manner of corrupt leadership greed is legion. And, I think you know that too. Corporations and unions do not speak for their shareholders/members “as one”; they speak for the power, greed and influence interests of the corporation or union.

Another valid point, however in regard to corporate or institutional shareholding interests, those shareholding corporations and institutions have members as well. In regards to the unions their leadership is elected, if they don't represent the interests kick them out. That being said, I am not for forced unionization in some states as I think that enlarges the problem as far as our discussion here. Still, my point does stand that if corporations are afforded these Constitutional rights then organized labor should be as well. Also my point still stands about the need for a Constitutional Amendment being necessary if you want to curtail the rights currently granted by the Constitution. I am fine with that, I'm just not fine with lesser laws doing so.