Anyone have Links for arguments presented in SCOTUS case

[FreakinDJ]

I gotta hear how this asshole argued favorably for granting 1st amendment rights to Corporations

[harun]

1. I need to see this as well. To say "money = speech" is weak sauce. I can't give

a cop that pulls me over 20 bux not to give me a ticket because I am free to speak my mind.

[Spheric]

2. Here are the arguments...

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

And here are a few choice quotes from the opinion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7542918

[blogslut]

3. Here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

[FreakinDJ]

4. Just proves we have to go after "Corporate Personhood"

sickening

It has been argued that the men who wrote the 14th Amendment specifically meant for the word person to be a loophole which you could drive a giant corporation through. Apparently in one of the railroad cases an attorney who had been on the committee that drafted the amendment waived a paper before the court claiming that it documented such; but the paper was not entered as evidence, nor apparently was it shown to anyone, nor was it saved. However, careful research has shown that, John A. Bingham the member of Congress who is known to have been chiefly responsible for the phraseology of Section One when it was drafted by the Joint Committee in 1866, had, during the previous decade and as early as 1856-1859, employed not one but all three of the same clauses and concepts he later used in Section One. More important still, Bingham employed these guarantees specifically and in a context which suggested that free Negroes and mulattoes rather than corporations and business enterprise unquestionably were the persons' to which he then referred.

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html