Reply #144: where did the Supremes say a corporation can run for president?

[onenote]

I'd love to see where that appears in the CU decision or elsewhere.

The First Amendment covers corporate entities. It has for a long time and even Justice Stevens made clear that he agrees stating in his dissent that: "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment" and "...speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation.... Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary."

I guess its a good thing that Justice Stevens is retiring before some here claim he should be impeached because he recognized that corporations have first amendment rights.

The problem with CU -- and it was a terrible decision -- is not that it found that the first amendment applies to corporate speech. Its that it failed to employ the traditional analysis that the court has used in determining whether particular restrictions on speech -- whether they be limiting the voting rights of felons, or restricting the speech of minors, or any of a zillion other ways that the courts employ line drawing rather than an absolutist approach to the first amendment and thus treated the first amendment rights of corporations in the political context as coextensive with those of natural persons.

THe problem isn't finding that corporations have first amendment rights, its refusing to regulate the exercise of those rights consistent with precedent.