The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Reading over news accounts of the recent protest at the Supreme Court on the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, I'm saddened by the disconnect between what the case actually held and what the protesters apparently shouted in the courtroom. For example, one protester shouted "one person, one vote!," which would be more appropriate at a protest against Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) than against Citizens United.
I thought it might be helpful to offer protesters some legally accurate Citizens United protests for next time. A few suggestions:
1. "Preventing distortions caused by the aggregation of wealth permitted by the corporate form is a compelling governmental interest!"
2. "What do we want? Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. When do we want it? Now!"
3. "Corporate independent expenditures can be limited because of its interest in protecting dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech!"
4. Or, for a more pithy chant: "No prohibition on corporate independent expenditures, no peace."
BONUS SUGGESTION: "Hey, hey, AMK, how many disclosure requirements did you leave still today?"