CORPORATIONS = PEOPLE AND MONEY = SPEECH = PURE BULL CHIOT LIES!

Citizens United, “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent CORPORATlONS from undermining self GOVERNMENT since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive CORRUPTlNG potential of CORPORATE electioneering since the days of Theodore ROOSEVELT. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of CORPORATE MONEY in politics.”

 — Justice Stevens and TOTAL of four Justices

“CORPORATIONS have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. CORPORATIONS help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our CONSTITUTION was established.”

 — Justice Stevens

“The GOVERNMENT Must Pursue A Course Of Complete Neutrality Toward Religion.”

— Justice John Paul Stevens

“MONEY Is Property; It Is Not Speech.”

— Justice John Paul Stevens

“At Stake In This Case Is Nothing Less Than The Essence Of A Free SOClETY.”

— Justice John Paul Stevens

“The conceit that CORPORATIONS must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court¹s disposition of this case.”

— Justice John Paul Stevens

“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between CORPORATE and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our SOClETY, CORPORATlONS are not actually members of it.

— Justice John Paul Stevens

 

“They (CORPORATlONS created in 15 minutes) cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and CONTROLLED by nonresidents, their Interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the Interests of eligible voters.”

— Justice John Paul Stevens

“The majority¹s approach to CORPORATE electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by CORPORATlONS ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 19O7.

— Justice John Paul Stevens

YOU THINK?

“The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the NATlON. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”

— Justice John Paul Stevens

Alito and the others should,”persuade[s] me that that in due course it will be necessary for the court to issue an opinion explicitly crafting an exception that will create a crack in the FOUNDATlON of the Citizens United majority opinion…(In doing so) it will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters (domestic CORPORATlONS) than to that of other non-voters” such as the Canadian Harvard Law School graduate who remains barred from making campaign contributions.

— Justice JOHN PauI Stevens

The lawsuit brought by the Canadian citizen “unquestionably provided the court with an appropriate opportunity to explain why the president had misinterpreted the Court’s opinion in Citizens United. [T]he court instead took the surprising action of simply affirming the district court without comment and without dissent….(So) “notwithstanding the broad language used by the majority in Citizens United, it is now settled, albeit unexplained, that the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech…. But the court cannot forever evade a written reckoning with the logical conclusion of its Citizens United decision.”

— Justice JOHN PauI Stevens – Case Bluman v. FEC

“I think it is likely that when the court begins to spell out which categories of non-voters should receive the same protections as the not-for-profit Citizens United advocacy group, it will not only exclude terrorist organizations and foreign agents, but also all CORPORATlONS owned or CONTROLLED by non-citizens, and possibly even those in which non-citizens have a substantial Interest,”

— Justice JOHN PauI Stevens – Case Bluman v. FEC

“Where that line will actually be drawn (speech for TER RORlSTS or those who fund them) will depend on an exercise of judgment by the majority of members of the court, rather than on any proposition of law identified in the Citizens United majority opinion.”

— Justice JOHN PauI Stevens – Case Bluman v. FEC

Stevens lambasted the Citizens United majority for overruling a precedent that allowed states to bar CORPORATE spending from beyond their borders and “those CORPORATE non-voters were comparable to the non-voting foreign CORPORATlONS that concerned President Obama when he criticized the Citizens United majority opinion.”

— Justice JOHN PauI Stevens

“If the First Amendment does not protect the right of a graduate of Harvard Law School to spend his own MONEY to support the candidate of his choice simply because his Canadian citizenship deprives him of the right to participate in our elections, the fact that CORPORATlONS may be owned or CONTROLLED by Canadians — indeed, in my judgment, the fact that CORPORATlONS have no right to vote — should give Congress the POWER to exclude them from direct participation in the electoral process.”

— Justice JOHN PauI Stevens