Notes to Solicitor General, ELENA KAGAN: Re Corporations and "robust Debate"

In the case now being heard by the Supreme Court: CITIZENS UNITED, Appellant v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. No. 08-205
-- whereby Chief Justice Roberts is squirming to unleash corporate wealth on the election process -

Mr. Olson has said that the Federal Elections Commission decision limiting electioneerig speech by corporations and unions would limit "robust debate":

" Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

Robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Yet that is precisely the dialogue that the government has prohibited if practiced by unions or corporations, any union or any corporation.

The government claims it may do so based upon the Austin decision that corporate speech is by its nature corrosive and distorting because it might not reflected actual public support for the views expressed by the corporation."


I would submit..

1. that allowing corporations free reign to spend to whatever amounts they can raise, on electioneering speech WOULD LIMIT ROBUST DEBATE because that would be like one participant in a debate haveing an electrically amplified bullhorn with which he would drown out all other participants to such debate not so equipped. If we are to have at least a chance of haveing a robust debate all participants should be protected from being drowned out in any such debate.

It is for this reason that corporations which are capable of making vast expenditures for electioneering speech that they would be able to drown out others with far less wealth and subvert the goal of obtaining a robust debate of issues and canditates.

2. Most Corporations are controlled by a relatively small number of shareholders who own far more shares of the corporations stock and therefor have far more influence than perhaps thousands of smaller shareholders. This is entirely different than say a union or an association of businessmen (e.g. U.S. Chambers of Commerce) where each member has an equal vote and presumably an equal influence on the policies and actions of the association or union.

The Government has a duty to protect robust debate from being overwhelmed by the vast expenditures Corporations could make in electioneering speech. also, corporations are not representative organizations as unions or associations of equal voting members are so the argument for equal treatment of corporations and unions or other associations of equals does not hold up to scrutiny.



Link to oral arguments first day: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf