Dealing with the Supreme Court decision

[onehsaquestion]

After reading the opinion, there was a bit of talk about corporations being bound by their charters. Is there potential for getting around the decision by passing laws requiring money spent for "speech" by corporations to be within the context of their individual charters?

[ThomWV]

1. I wouldn't think so

Because in the end all attempts to "get around" the decision are further restrictions of free speech themselves. The fix is just as unconstitutional as the original problem.

But that doesn't mean the problem can't be fixed.
"
Here's the fix. Somewhere in law the definition of what is a "person" must be fixed. The law that defines it can be as simple as this: "A person, for the purpose of law, is a living human with a beating heart."

Presto! Problem solved.

[onehsaquestion]

2. Reading the opinion...

...you'd have to do much more than redefine person for that to work.

You'd have to overturn decisions from the 60s that gave organizations such as the NAACP the same rights this decision did (that early 60s ruling was a huge part of this one). The idea of personhood wasn't a prevalent in the decision as the fact that people don't lose their First Amendment rights because they are acting within a group. What this court did was say that just because an organization is a for profit corporation, they shouldn't be treated differently than other organizations.

For what you are suggesting to work, it would require stripping First Amendment rights from virtually every organization and making it a solely individual right.

edit:Stevens was pretty spot on in his remark that there was absolutely no reason for the court to make that decision on for-profit corporations as it was not necessary in the case they were ruling on. It was judicial activism at its finest.