Nader, On Citizens United

At almost every number at which I talk nearly the Constitution or the Supreme Court to a full general audience, somebody volition heighten a mitt in addition to say they strongly oppose the Court's Citizens United ruling. I ever response yesteryear hollo for that mortal to explain, "for the create goodness of the audience," what the Supreme Court decided inwards Citizens United. Without neglect the mortal (a) does non know what the organization, Citizens United, was in addition to what the regime sought to foreclose it from doing in addition to (b) wrongly reports that the Supreme Court held inwards the illustration that corporations are persons amongst a correct to brand unlimited monetary contributions to candidates for political office. I in addition to so explicate what the illustration was genuinely nearly (a challenge, yesteryear an organisation seeking ad-supported video-on-demand distribution of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, to the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting corporations in addition to unions from using their full general treasury funds to brand independent expenditures for electioneering communications). With the facts in addition to asset properly described, I in addition to so engage the audience inwards a conversation nearly the merits of the decision. I larn through this practise non to telephone band out an unsuspecting audience fellow member merely to demonstrate the importance of agreement exactly the facts of a illustration in addition to the contours of a judicial ruling in addition to the associated dangers of relying on mass-media audio bites that courtroom decisions oftentimes generate. Lawyers, of course, should know these things already. But hither is how Ralph Nader describes Citizens United inwards his alphabetic lineament published today inwards The New York Times (in response to a recent column yesteryear ACLU Legal Director David Cole): "Citizens United allows unlimited political contributions yesteryear corporations for or against candidates for elective office." Nader sure enough knows what Citizens United was about. His smarmy phrasing--"political contributions by corporations for or against candidates for elective office"--thus appears designed to reinforce the perception that the illustration involved corporations giving coin to political candidates. It's 1 affair to alarm the populace that the Supreme Court has made a mistake. It's some other to criticize an error never made.