Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in January 2010, struck down federal limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions as violations of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, reached the bold conclusion that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
i knew this was going to bite the scotus, it was to blaring of a disproportionate unjust law that invited other countries to buy stock if not the deed to parts of America. and you see what side is all for the corruptible influence of other we don't know where it's been money.
there is buzz about taking away those absolute power's enjoyed by the scotus, i think this is influencing there more in line with their job decisions. i'll say it again we can not have any org. that has a infinite tenure all should be subject to election by "we the people" not appointed by an agenda drive party that does not include "we the people" in job description.Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote to dissent from the summary reversal. "Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so," Breyer wrote. "Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case."
