Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
540 U. S. 93, 203-209 (2003) which was largely based on Austin v. 494 U. S. 652 (1990).
Austin
banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. Here, the Court was asked to reconsider
Austin
and, in eect,
Citizens United raised ve points in its arguments but later on waived the fth point. However, the Court found that it cannot resolve the case on the grounds raised by Citizens United without chilling political speechspeech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. In overturning
Austin,
by the Government: antidistorition interest, anitcorruption interest, and shareholderprotection interest. It argued that if the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. Political speech is indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.
Austin
prevent corporations from obtaining an "unfair advantage in the political marketplace" by using "resources amassed in the economic marketplace." 494 U. S., at 659. However, as a necessary consequence of the First Amendment, political speech cannot be limited based
limits on contributions but did not extend that reasoning to expenditure limits. Limits on independent expenditures have a chilling eect extending well beyond the Government's interest in preventing
quid pro quo
sucient to displce the speech here in question. In arguing against the shareholder-protection interest, the Court reasoned that the potential disagreement of a shareholder with the political views of the corporation could give the Government the authority to restrict the media corporation's political speech. The First Amendment does not allow that power. Also, it argued that the statute is both underinclusive and overinclusive.
decisis
stare
ment of legal principles. However, if adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its
Austin
was overruled because rst, it was an "aberration" insofar as it departed from the 435 U. S. 765 (1978). Second, the validity of
Austin
protections the Court had granted political speeh in earlier cases, such as,
Nat. Bank of Boston v. Belloti,
ra-
threatened to subvert the Court's decisions even outside the particular context of corporate
3 Right to speech of individuals includes the right to speak in association with other individuals
by Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia argues against Justice Steven's dissent which purported to show that the decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent suggested that because the Framers didn't like corporations, the dissent concluded that corporations had no rights of free speech. Scalia acknowledged that the Framers recognized the right to free speech of individuals. As a corollary, the individual's right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Scalia criticized the dissent and pointed out that the First Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text oers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker: individuals, partnerships, associations or corporations.