Politics

Clarence Thomas on Citizens United, Corporate Speech, and the State of the Union

|

Justice Clarence Thomas gave one of his famously frank and entertaining speeches to a law school audience this week in Florida, and as Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times, Thomas offered some choice quotes about the fallout from last month's landmark free speech decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.:

By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

"I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company," Justice Thomas said. "These are corporations."

As for the common refrain that the Court overturned decades of precedent, Thomas pointed out the less than savory history of the 1907 Tillman Act, one of the earliest campaign finance laws:

"Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation," Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. "Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them."

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as "some sort of beatific action."

And what about President Obama's much ballyhooed criticism of the Court during the State of the Union Address?

"I don't go because it has become so partisan and it's very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there," he said, adding that "there's a lot that you don't hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments."

"One of the consequences," he added in an apparent reference to last week's address, "is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It's just an example of why I don't go."

Read the whole story here. Relive the great Obama-Alito brouhaha below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Civility Begins in the Heart

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thank you Justice Thomas!

  2. And remember Joe Biden questioned this guy’s intelligence. Thomas is a walking talking bitch slap to liberals. Here is a black man who really did suffer from discrimination in his life. Who really overcome big odds to get ahead. And he rejects everything liberals stand for. God, they must hate that.

    1. PUBIC HAIR! LONG DONG SILVER!

      HURRR HURR DURR HURR!

    2. God, they must hate that.

      They do hate it. Here’s a black American who beat the odds, rose to the pinnacle of his profession…but, because he’s a Republican, the left shuns him, says he has betrayed his tribe. The left exposes its embarrassing racist soul.

      1. Consider Thomas’s life experiences (only black guy in an all white high school in Savanah in the late 60s, grew up dirt poor) to Obama’s (privleged son of two PHDs raised by his bank VP white grandmother and sent to all the best schools). It is pretty stark isn’t it? Makes me smile to think of how much aggrivation that must cause liberals.

        1. Not only that, but Thomas’ native language is Gullah, not English. Essentially he didn’t begin learning English until he was six.

          1. Obama wants the rest of us to learn French, but he doesn’t even speak it.

          2. Gullah is a creole English.The transition is not that difficult.

            1. fuck yea i heartz the clutch

    3. And remember Joe Biden questioned this guy’s intelligence. Thomas is a walking talking bitch slap to liberals.

      Yeah, Biden sounds like the pot calling the kettle black,….so to speak. 🙂

    4. I just thought it was his correct take on limiting the commerce and elasticity clauses.

  3. “Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

    Corporate spending limits, gun control, the Davis Bacon Act, is there an historically racist policy liberals don’t support?

    1. You forgot the War on [some] Drugs – the Harrison Act was to keep the yellow devils from seducing white women with opium.

      1. And Negroes improving their pistol marksmanship with cocaine.You can read all about it in the NYTs.

        1. Ahhh, there you go Speaker Reid, bringing together the gat and the doobie branches of libertarianism.

    2. Is anyone here really stupid enough to think Tillman was a liberal?

      1. Is anyone here really stupid enough to think Tillman was a liberal?

        Is anyone not?

        Tillman:
        * Was a leader in railroad regulation
        * Supported campaign finance reform
        * Opposed war in the Philippines
        * Adopted almost all of the People’s Party platform (in order to prevent the fusionism that happened in NC)

        Yeah, he was incredibly racist, and he had a narrative for everything explaining why his racism made him take his liberal views.

        But he supported every single pet liberal and Progressive cause of the time. For the time, he was most certainly a liberal. Just a super-racist one, which wasn’t that unusual those days. Plenty of them saw themselves as standing up for “the common [white] man” against the evils of the Republicans plutocrats, who would oppress whites by hiring blacks.

        Old Josephus Daniels of the Raleigh News & Observer was a liberal, and he led the worst race-baiting campaign in NC history.

        1. He also supported Jim Crow and segregation whereas the signature issue of the left for decades has been civil rights legislation and programs, so how does that fit in?

          1. Those “decades” began with Lyndon B. Johnson “if we pass the Voting Rights Act we will own the nigger vote for the next 100 years.”

            1. Is that supposed to be some quote, because I’d like a cite on that one.

                1. God damn it, MNG, I almost clicked on that.

                2. You like that shit don’t you MUNG? Turns you on?

          2. He also supported Jim Crow and segregation whereas the signature issue of the left for decades has been civil rights legislation and programs, so how does that fit in?

            Decades that started after he served. He supported all the signature issues of the Left of his time.

            Unlike, say, Fritz Hollings, who put up the Confederate Battle Flag on the South Carolina capital but was always a liberal on economic issues, Pitchfork Ben didn’t span the time and have to pivot.

            1. Do you think liberals were only pushing for the economic regulation you mention?

              And I’m again stumped as to why in the world you would find Fritz Holling as the voice of liberalism. You don’t think Democrat=liberal do you? Hell that’s not even true today, much less historically.

              1. A good indicator os what social liberalism was up to in 1907 would be something like repealing the law at question the Scopes trial. Now if you had some evidence that Tillman was for having evolution taught in the schools, or for women’s liberation, then you’d have more evidence that he represented “liberalism” of his times. As it is he seems conservative socially and liberal economically.

          3. He also supported Jim Crow and segregation whereas the signature issue of the left for decades has been civil rights legislation

            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            You can’t make up stupid like this, folks.

          4. Decades, maybe. But a century and a half ago, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. This is somewhere in between, chronologically.

            Besides, the guy was a southern Democrat. It was the Southern Dems that broke away when the left made a big deal out of civil rights and became the Dixiecrats.

            Here’s the first line of his Wikipedia entry:
            “Benjamin Ryan Tillman (August 11, 1847 ? July 3, 1918) was an American politician who served as the 84th Governor of South Carolina, from 1890 to 1894, and as a United States Senator, from 1895 until his death in office. Combative, vitriolic, and openly racist, Tillman’s views were a matter of national controversy.”

            1. Bah, never mind. Reading comprehension is rusty, apparently.

        2. So, not a liberal at all – i.e. nothing like Bastiat?

      2. Tillman also was very responsible for helping found Winthrop and Clemson Universities, and sat on the board of directories of the latter.

        In every way he was a Southern liberal Democrat of his time.

        1. In what universe do you live in where founding institutions of higher education=liberal?

          1. Winthrop, the one that was not racially integrated until 1964.

            Clemson, first Black student admitted 1963.

          2. Both of them are public schools, though you may not be able to tell by the name. That tips it towards liberal somewhat.

            1. Public schools that refused to even entertain the thought of admitting a Black citizen student from the 1800’s until the 1960’s.

              1. You mean Tillman sought to use the law to preserve traditional mores on race? Agreed.

                What’s confusing is how anyone can think that’s not conservatism? Preserving traditional mores is certainly not the province of the left…

                1. Jim Crow was not the “traditional mores”.It was a progressive innovation in response to emancipation.

                  See: Pitchfork Ben: South Carolina’s Progressive Reformer by Simkins, Francis Butler Simkins,text available online.

                  1. “It was a progressive innovation in response to emancipation.”

                    Hilarious stuff, Bedford Forrest was quite the progressive. I heard he wanted to marry Robert E Lee, wanted abortion legal and supported the ERA…

                    1. Of course there is the ignored fact that of liberals and conservatives it was the former that killed Jim Crow. And it’s the same movement that still today calls itself “liberals.”

                      Calling Tillman a liberal in today’s terms is hilarious as liberalism today is more about the kind of minority rights/lifestyle liberalism that Tillman stood against.

                    2. All those liberal Republicans that were required to oiut-vote the Dixiecrats and their successors? Those guys?

                    3. “All those liberal Republicans that were required to oiut-vote the Dixiecrats and their successors?”

                      So Republican=liberal AND Democrat=liberal?

                      Are you confused my son?

                    4. I have never seen anybody try to excuse a history of racism and continue to presderve it through denial as much as you.

                    5. My side destroyed Jim Crow and ushered in an unheralded increase in the quality of life and opportunities for blacks, so it’s amusing to see you accuse it of racism.

                    6. “my side”

                      haha! congrats on one of the most racially condescending things uttered on these here pages.

                    7. Well, since my side consistently includes 90%+ of blacks as well as nearly every major black civil rights activitst of the time period I’m not sure there is any condenscion there…They know who opposed the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, etc.

                    8. Is your side “Democrats” or “civil rights fighters”? Democrats may have fought to end Jim Crow, but they created it in the first place, so it’s sort of a wash.

                      If it’s “liberals”, that would be mostly true for classical liberals, but not necessarily with Progressives, especially historical ones, whose primary achievement for racial equality was extending the white man’s burden to the wrong kind of white people as well.

                2. the liberals seem to be quite gung-ho over the marriage question.

                  1. Part of many people’s confusion seems to be that the Populists=liberals of their day. The Populist movement was largely a rural movement. Whatever else liberalism in the past few decades has been, it ain’t been rural, voting patterns of rural voters make that quite plain. Lifestyle liberals of today have more in common with Mencken than Bryan (think ACLU).

                    1. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                      “Lifestyle liberals of today have more in common with Mencken than Bryan (think ACLU).”

                      sockpuppetry! no way you said that earnestly!

                    2. That’s a lot of LOLs, are you a twelve year old girl by chance?

                      One of Mencken’s signature issues was fighting censorship (“Comstockery”), or don’t they teach that in middle school these days.

                    3. Burn! Mencken also despised democracy and thr common man. Neither of those nor hostility to censorship are common in modern lib. Circles.

                    4. Yeah, the ACLU for example didn’t work to strike down the same obscenity laws Mencken fought against.

                      Whatever.

                      “Mencken also despised democracy and thr common man”

                      Right, liberals are elitists too, right? You’re talking points seem a bit contradictory…

                    5. Umm, no. But thanks for playing

                    6. Its fun to define your side as everyone for civil rights! With that def everyone in congress today is on ur side

      3. Tillman also got his “Pitchfork Ben” nickname from a speech attacking Grover Cleveland for not supporting silver coinage.

        1. Modern liberalism is a strange mash-up of “lifestyle liberalism” which promotes things like minority rights, womens rights, gay rights, etc., and “economic liberalism” like New Deal/Great Society type stuff. On the former Tillman would have voted for Goldwater, on the later LBJ. This is why it’s silly to call folks back then “liberals” in the modern sense.

          1. On the former Tillman would have voted for Goldwater, on the later LBJ.

            He would have voted for the original LBJ, the great segregationist hope.

            This is why it’s silly to call folks back then “liberals” in the modern sense.

            Yes, but they were Progressives and liberals in the sense of their time.

            1. I think the point that is trying to be made is that liberals, by definiton, can’t be racist. Ever.

              1. It’s not that liberals can’t be racist, but given the single most celebrated cause of liberals for decades has been civil rights for blacks it’s silly to think racism against blacks is a hallmark of liberalism.

                Do you know any liberal that gets as excited about the struggle to enact, say, minimum wage laws as they do civil rights? It’s the “Exodus” of the left.

                1. Racism against blacks and other minorities was most certainly a hallmark of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century. That they did sort of a 180 mid-century (it’s arguable that the modern liberal’s have traded hostility for being patronizing), does not change that progressives like Woodrow Wilson were vile racists.

          2. Modern liberalism is a strange mash-up of “lifestyle liberalism” which promotes things like minority rights, womens rights, gay rights, etc., and “economic liberalism” like New Deal/Great Society type stuff.

            Yes, and Tillman was the same way, except that he was for “white rights.”

            1. But since whites were the majority then he was the opposite of what liberalism in the nation for decades has stood for.

              1. But since whites were the majority then he was the opposite of what liberalism in the nation for decades has stood for.

                Then perhaps the Democratic Party in South Carolina and elsewhere should stop naming shit after him and the other racists and take their names off things.

                1. You’re not stupid enough to think Democrat=liberal are you? By that logic Grover Cleveland was a liberal.

                  1. Modern Democrats are usually liberal. It wasn’t always so. Grover Cleveland, like many Democrats of his time, would be appalled at what modern Democrats now stand for.

                  2. Grover Cleveland was arguably the most liberal of presidents.

      4. Is anyone here really stupid enough to think Tillman was a liberal?

        What traits of liberal are you talking about?

      5. Who cares what he was. They still support his policies. Just like liberals still love Davis Bacon even though it was written specifically to screw black people.

        1. Since times and conditions change I’m not sure how the original purpose would be relevant as to why someone would support such laws today.

          1. It is relevent when its effects are still the same as it was when it was enacted. Davis Bacon still screws black people because a higher percentage of union members are white. Gun control still hurts black people the most because they are still the ones who as a group are in the most need of self defense.

            Ultimately, liberals care a hell of a lot more about power and unions and their money than they ever did about black people.

            1. Yeah right, LBJ and the Democratic Party sacrificed the Solid South for decades in a selfish bid of power.

              1. The Progressives became the Dixiecrats, not the Dixiepublicans.

                1. Hows that? You do know that when the Dixiecrats split from the Democrats it was because of the national party supporting civil rights? There was also a Progressive Party candidate, Wallace, who was for civil rights. Modern progressivism has much more in common with the Wallace wing than the Thurmond wing. In fact the Dixiecrat Platform sounds mostly like…libertarians!

                  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html

                  1. ‘Modern progressivism has much more in common with the Wallace wing than the Thurmond wing’

                    You mean modern progressives are Commie dupes, too?

                    1. I saw that first as “Thurmond wig.”

  4. “Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

    Most legislation has its origin on things that have nothing to do with what the bills were purported to do. The Sherman act has absolutely nothing to do with assuring the market remains competitive – quite the contrary. The Wagner act has NOTHING to do with defending unions from powerful corporations: it gave unions more leverage against those big corporations’ competitors, thus increasing the competition’s labor costs. The FDA has nothing to do with keeping the food supply safe or the drugs we’re prescribed safe, but with limiting consumers’ choices. And so on.

  5. I would remind you that racism in the defense of equality is no vice!

    1. Of course the modern civil rights movement was supported by liberals and opposed by what was then thought to be the right (Goldwater and Nixon). It’s interesting to forget that little fact. Of course those benefited by the movement, blacks, realize that and vote accordingly. They’re not fools.

      1. What, Everett Dirksen was a liberal?

      2. uhh Sen. Robert Byrd?

        ” I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”
        ? Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

        Love them liberals.

        1. Byrd? Did he serve in the military? I thought he spent the war feather-bedding as a union welder in the Newport News shipyards.

        2. Yeah, because West Virginia is a hotbed of liberalism. Gay marriage and affirmative action all over the place.

          1. Byrd isn’t a racist liberal? When did that happen?

            1. When did Byrd become a liberal? Was it his vote for the Defense of Marriage Act? His opposition to gays in the military?

              1. As for Fritz Hollings, when did that guy become a spokesperson for liberalism? His bill to mandate military service? His vote against the Family Leave Act? His vote to confirm Bork and Thomas? His support for the anti-flag burning amendment? For DOMA? Against affirmative action?

                Do you know anything about liberalism?

              2. When did supporting gays politically become the defining attribute of who is a liberal?

      3. Goldwater desegregated the Arizona National Guard, was a member of the Arizona NAACP and the Urban League. Characterizing him based on his principled vote against the Civil Rights Act is horseshit of the foulest stench.

        Off the top of my head, another well-known conservative who marched for civil rights was Charleton Heston. I’m sure I could come up with many many more if need be.

        1. I didn’t say Goldwater was racist, I said racists flocked to him.

          1. I bet you don’t get the irony of ranting about how much white liberals are down with the black folks……in a post about Clarence Thomas, one of the most anti-liberal black people in the world.

            Libs are just so humorless

  6. “…there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV ? the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

    I would love to hear that shit. They need to designate one network to broadcast the address with its mic pointed at the gallery and the sensitivity way up.

    1. So would I. I have this vision of Congress sounding a bit like the school room chatter in the old Van Halen song “Hot for Teacher” only with lots of crude references to Max Bauchus’ hair piece Nancy Pelosi’s plastic surgery and Scalia and Alito’s guinnea charm.

    2. If you had been over to my house that night, you could have heard plenty of it.

      1. Except that the comments weren’t exactly “under the breath.”

    3. They need to get that parabolic microphone going so we can hear whats going on on the sidelines.

  7. “the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches.”

    You might call it a high-tech lynching.

  8. I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don’t–I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.His hair smells like sulfur,that straightener the colored’s all use.I can hardly understand that Negro dialect when he asks if he can “hold a quarter”. Two of my hubcaps are missing, you know?

    1. How’s your re-election campaign going?

      1. Akston…I knew a Negro boy with that name…Say, did you ever shine shoes in Carson City back in ’63?

  9. One of us should get elected to Congress–pretending to be a good Democrat or Republican. Spend about a year just acting like a regular guy/gal, all while secretly recording everything. Send all of your video and sound recordings to a friend in the media, then reveal yourself to be a secret libertarian mole and start voting against everything and proposing gigantic spending cuts, tax reductions, etc. All while stretching parliamentary procedure to the breaking point to screw up Congress’ business as usual.

    1. pro libertate ’10

    2. So sort of like a combination of Ron Paul and Tom Coburn, but with secret recordings?

    3. I would love to be in Congress. I would have so much fun. Just two years. That is all I would ask. I would spend it well.

    4. I would love to be in Congress. I would have so much fun. Just two years. That is all I would ask. I would spend it well.

      1. The deepest. Resist the temptation to tell your friends, your libertarian fellow travelers, even your family the truth.

  10. To be fair to the campaign reformers, just because Tillman pushed the law doesn’t mean that he saw it just as a subset of his white-supremacy policies.

    There were many populist politicians, of whom Tillman was one, who believed in sticking it to the corporations which they believed were oppressing the farmers. Some Populists reached out to black voters, others (like Tillman) demagogued as furiously against blacks as against teh corporations.

    I would like to know whether, as Justice Thomas says, Tillman specifically had white supremacy in mind when he promoted the Tillman Act.

    the Campaign for Freedom blog, discussing Tillman’s role, does not claim that there was a direct connection between Tillman’s white supremacism and his corporation-bashing:

    ‘Does all this have anything to do with the substance of what may be Tillman’s most enduring legacy, the Tillman Act? Not in any obvious way, although the Tillman Act aimed to cut the power of northern industrialists, whom Tillman hated in part because of their more liberal attitudes on race. But we don’t see why the so-called “reform” community, which relies heavily on smear tactics and vague accusations of corruption in its own campaigns, should be able to claim Teddy Roosevelt and Elihu Root as its godfathers, but ignore its other founding father, Ben Tillman.’

    In other words, the Tillman angle is useful for puncturing the moral pretensions of the reformers, but it doesn’t prove that white supremacy was the objective actually aimed at by Tillman in his law.

    Does anyone have more specific information? I suspect there will be more discussion of this previously-obscure historical point now that Justice Thomas has laid down his challenge.

    1. It’s hard to know with Pitchfork Ben. He certainly did believe that big corporations were evil and that one aspect of their evil was their willingness to hire black people.

      Of course, he also opposed imperialism in the Philippines because of his racism.

      He was extremely racist, and he found a way to work his racism into the narrative for everything he supported.

      It doesn’t automatically tar campaign finance reform, but he certainly was more of a leader on the issue than some of the random racists are of tea party movement (that they try to pretend they run).

    2. Not that Teddy Roosevelt and Elihu Root were any great shakes, either, but they have traditionally gotten better press in the history books than Tillman.

    3. There were many populist politicians, of whom Tillman was one, who believed in sticking it to the corporations which they believed were oppressing the farmers. Some Populists reached out to black voters, others (like Tillman) demagogued as furiously against blacks as against teh corporations.

      I did both

      1. When populist politicians endorse racism, left-wing historians mull the ‘paradox.’ I mean, here are these politicians with a zeal for social justice and the courage to stand against the evil wickedness of the corporations, and then suddenly they go all unhinged and start demagoguing about race! When they never showed any tendencies toward scapegoating and demagoguing before! There’s just no way to explain it. ?

  11. “beatific action”

    Finally we get some from this court and the Left screams like a gored bull.

  12. How did Reason aquire a picture of Obama taking an especially difficult dump?

  13. While the Tillman aspect of the current brouhaha is certainly interesting from a historical basis, I find the comments about “The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company” more compelling.

    Does these two worthless piles of mindless liberal dreck even REALIZE the complete irony of their bitching about the decision?

    Or are they so freakin arrogant that they think no one else notices what hypocritical douchebags they are?

    It’s kinda a rhetorical question.

    1. They added a paragraph noting that the two companies had an exception, but then noting Justice Thomas’s rebuttal that “that was a legislative exemption, not a Constitutional one” (in the minds of the government side as well.)

  14. While the Tillman aspect of the current brouhaha is certainly interesting from a historical basis, I find the comments about “The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company” more compelling.

    Does these two worthless piles of mindless liberal dreck even REALIZE the complete irony of their bitching about the decision?

    The people I’ve been arguing intensely with about this locally really believe that they can solve that problem by excluding non-profits and “media” from the ban, and really are not at all worried that putting the definition of “media” into the hands of the government invites abuse.

    These are people who I believe are good, well meaning, decent folk. Damn if I know what I can do for them at this point?

    1. Ask your friends if they think the WSJ is a “media” corporation and therefore exempt or do they not qualify according to some arbitrary opinion of what constitutes a “media” corporation?

      I already what the NYT would say.

      Thank god we have Clarence Thomas. The guy is a freaking saint in my book.

      1. Tried that.

        Tried the WSJ, Fox news, and the National Enquirer. No dice.

        Tried a variety of hypotheticals including the HMO Times-Zeitung Weekly as published by BigHealthCo. They didn’t get it.

        These folks see corporate boards as the very boogyman himself, and a government functionary as a saint sent from on high.

        1. I do not envy your predicament. I live in Nashville but was raised in Massachusetts so I knew what a complete asshole John Kerry is. In 2004 during the election I got branded as a bible-thumping christian conservative creationist because I refused to support Kerry and said I felt safer electing Bush.

          I’m agnostic and think the bible is a horrible piece of fiction, and I have the #2 ranked link in google for “creationist stupidity”.

          I use to think that the bible thumpers were the real threat to our country, but the more I watch the left disintegrate now that their favorite target is out of office I no longer think this way. The are WAYYYY more intolerant than anything I ever experienced from the right.

          Sucks to be us I guess.

          1. You’re down to No.4. Trying to drum up traffic?

    2. You could try explaining to them that regardless of what it does (whether publishes a newspaper or makes sneakers), a “corporation” is merely a legal definition for a way people are organized, how they’re taxed, and what their liability is in the event of a lawsuit.

      You could also point out that according to the Small Business Administration, as of 2008 there were 29.6 million businesses in the United States and 99.7% of them had fewer than 500 employees and that consistently about half of all those employed in the U.S. work for a company with fewer than 500 employees (and about a third of those work for companies with fewer than 20 employees).

      http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

      The ban could be applied to any group of two or more people who pooled resources, so it affected far more people than just the 0.3% of companies not classified as small.

  15. I just love how the huffington post ommited this line from the story “”Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

    It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.” ”

    wonder why they left it out?

  16. Burn! Mencken also despised democracy and thr common man. Neither of those nor hostility to censorship are common in modern lib. Circles.

    Modern liberals are not hostile to censorship, unless it is censorship of liberal thoughts. Their hostility toward the Citizens United ruling is based on their love of censoring the free political speech of non-lefty corporations, while preserving that speech for MSM lefty corporations.

  17. Thomas doesn’t get them all right, but he got this one. I almost wish such a Frank response was given with the Scalia-esque verbal beat down. Not that Thomas isn’t as articulate.

  18. This ruling is going to mean more government intervention in the economy and more private sector money spent on elections… I don’t think that’s a good thing. Free speech is for the individual, not the collective (or corporate) entity.

    1. “This ruling is going to mean more government intervention in the economy and more private sector money spent on elections…”

      Doubtful. I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.

  19. Free speech is for the individual, not the collective (or corporate) entity.

    This claim is not compatible with the freedom of association.

    It is not the government’s business to tell me that I can’t get together some other people to push our agenda collectively. Nor is it the governments business to tell us how we should organize our affairs when we do it.

    It is east to think of Big Business (tm) as an alien other that needs to be controlled, but your claims apply just as well to the little cigarette deliver business that I want to start with my cousin Frank and that guy he used to play in a band with. You are, in short, trying to muzzle the little guy just as much as The Man.

  20. bestpriceforsales equus 3100 I purchased this for my husband and within the first 2 times he used it the item paid for itself! My Dad also used it and was happy he did because he would have bought the wrong part because he thought the problem was something else.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.