Crunch
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,063
- Reaction score
- 890
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem
You keep pointing to the dissenting opinion as if it means anything..... they lost, they are wrong.... the court ruled and majority opinion is now law, get over it.
How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.
"In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
not a media corporation."
You keep pointing to the dissenting opinion as if it means anything..... they lost, they are wrong.... the court ruled and majority opinion is now law, get over it.