Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The foolishly naïve disagree

---

I would like to offer a little perspective to your "Our View" editorial of Jan. 25 regarding the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporate donations to election campaigns.

First, this case was a challenge to specific provisions of the McCain-Feingold law passed sometime this past decade. When the law was passed, legal scholars and pundits on both sides of the issue predicted a Supreme Court challenge. The idea that the recent decision overturns 100 years of precedent is simply mistaken.

Secondly, what is a corporation but a collection of individuals (shareholders) who chose a specific type of entity to do business? It is commonly accepted that corporations are entitled to the other rights individuals enjoy such as due process, private property, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It defies logic to think that corporations should not be entitled to the First Amendment right of free speech as well.

Finally, judicial activism as it has been commonly understood is the creation of a right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Whether you agree with this ruling or not, ratifying the First Amendment for corporations or any other legal entity is clearly not judicial activism. But then what do I know—I am "foolishly naïve."

acheter viagra
buy viagra
comprar viagra

Michael Beck

Hailey