Whenever someone argues in favor of government regulation of speech because of who the speaker is, I have to ask: What are they afraid of?
The first amendment, as the majority correctly held, protects all speech, not just the speech of individuals (or natural persons).
I don't understand your focus on the tax status of the speaker. The corporation at issue in the case, Citizens United, was a nonprofit corporation and thus pays no tax. More than one-third of the taxpayers in the USA paid no federal income tax last year. Making distinctions between different speakers on the basis of how much tax they pay makes no sense to me. Sole proprietorships (owned by natural persons) pay tax only on their net earnings from the business. All natural person taxpayers have numerous deductions and exemptions and credits - nobody is forced to pay federal tax on their gross earnings - only their taxable income after application of all deductions, exemptions and credits.
Ok, so you favor regulating the speech of corporations but not individuals. How about the speech of a partnership? What if the partnership is made up of just two natural persons? What if it's a partnership of hundreds of natural persons. How about the speech of a limited liability company (LLC)?
Predictably, Democrats favor regulating speech of some while allowing others to speak freely. When your ideas are losers and can't compete in a free marketplace of ideas, you want to regulate the speech of those with whom you disagree. Today the boogieman is the speech of corporations. Whose speech will you want to regulate/censor tomorrow?
I don't have much respect for (or use for) those who are so afraid of the first amendment. In my view, they're down there with people who disrupt speakers and attempt to shout them down, like the muslim students who disrupted the speech by the Israeli diplomat at UC Irvine in Orange County.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/irvine-11-students-appeal-conviction-.html
If your ideas are winners, you have nothing to fear from Citizens United v FEC. Perhaps you realize that some of your ideas are losers and the speech of your adversaries will convince people that your ideas aren't the ideal choice?
Since the Court never addressed the question (whether corporations were natural persons under the 14th amendment) in its written opinion, the headnote written by the former RR president (that is ironic) is completely irrelevant. As in "has no legal significance or meaning." Parties to legal disputes have been known to ignore potential rationales for a victory in their favor, and courts rarely decide a case on an issue not raised by either side. That's the case in the RR case. Neither side argued the corporate personhood issue - so the court didn't rule on it.
I assume you've not graduated from law school, Bob. You do see the irony here, don't you? You expounding on the legal significance of material not included in the Supreme Court's opinion is as funny as me (a graduate of law school) expounding on the meaning of some technical language in an airplane maintenance manual - something I don't do. You, on the other hand . . .
Ed Norton, Attorney at Sea for the defense ; thank you your honor, and may it please the court...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/394
Associate Justice John harlan gave the opinion of the Court:
The special grounds of defense by each of the defendants were: (1) That its road is a part of a continuous postal and military route, constructed and maintained under the authority of the United States, by means in part obtained from the general government; that the company having, with the consent of the state, become subject to the requirements, conditions, and provisions of the acts of congress, it thereby ceased to be merely a state corporation, and became one of the agencies or instrumentalities employed by the general government to execute its constitutional powers; and that the franchise to operate a postal and military route, for the transportation of troops, munitions of war, public stores, and the mails, being derived from the United States, cannot, without their consent, be subjected to state taxation.
(2) That the provisions of the constitution and laws of California, in respect to the assessment for taxation of the property of railway corporations operating railroads in more than one county, are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in so far as they require the assessment of their property at its full money value, without making deduction, as in the case of railroads operated in one county, and of other corporations, and of natural persons, for the value of the mortgages covering the property assessed; thus imposing upon the defendant unequal burdens, and to that extent denying to it the equal protection of the laws. (3) That what is known as section 3664 of the Political Code of California, under the authority of which, in part, the assessment was made, was not constitutionally enacted by the legislature, and had not the force of law. (4) That no void assessment appears in fact to have been made by the state board. (5) That no interest is recoverable in this action until after judgment. (6) That the assessment upon which the action is based is void, because it included property which the state board of equalization had no jurisdiction, under any circumstances, to assess; and that, as such illegal part was so blended with the balance that it cannot be separated, the entire assessment must be treated as a nullity..
It should'nt suprise anyone that the the Court has granted personhood to corporations. Next time someone complains about the police not protecting them, buy a gun instead. The Court ruled in 1989 that the state (ie police, social services, etc) is not there to protect the people, but to protect the business interests of the state (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services)
