Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« survival resources | Main | Numchuck case up for cert. conference »

Argument in Citizens United Case

Posted by David Hardy · 9 September 2009 10:20 AM

ScotusBlog says the Court appears ready to strike down some precedent, ruling that allowed bans on corporate campaign contributions (and which thus gave rise to PACs as separate entities). One argument against those rulings is simply that a corporation may simply represent an effort by a large number of nonwealthy people to equal the electoral influence of one very wealthy one.

· General con law

3 Comments | Leave a comment

geekWithA.45 | September 10, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply

Indeed.

Having been involved in the creation of citizen issue advocacy groups, I can attest to the matter.

I consider it a matter of the implementation of our right to Assemble, which does not mean "gather with your buddies for trivial social purposes."

The simple chain of causality is this:

Citizens who wish to be effective in their political goals must be able to do more than gather round the fireplace at the gun club in a bitch & moan festival. They must gather and spend resources to achieve their goals.

That gets you right there: For all practical purposes, you need a bank account, and *all* bank accounts are tied to either individual human or corporate entities.

Since no one is going to write checks out to "Joe Blow", rightfully fearing fraud and the fueling of Joe Blow's retirement and/or crack fund, that means that you need a corporate entity... when then subjects you to all sorts of regulation and liabilities.

Like buying a gun in New Jersey, people think it's easy, simple and risk free ~until~they~try~it~.

Anonymous | September 10, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply

I must have overlooked something somewhere along the line, but aren't the NY Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, ad nauseum, all corporations. Maybe there's something I missed in the Constitution that allows the government to decide which corporations are members of the press and protected by the 1st Amendment and which aren't.

Major Mike | September 10, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply

There is already a double standard. George Soros freely funds persuasive speech, "progressive" candidates, etc. from his vast personal fortune.

The only recourse (as GEEKWITHA45 said) that the "little guy" has to be heard in a political agora dominated by the likes of Soros and his lavishly-funded organizations, is to create similar advocacy groups.

Of course, MOVE ON, ACORN and other "progressive" advocacy groups, as well as the Greek chorus of old media, are not restrained.

As long as one viewpoint dominates the debate through a monopoly there is no effective free speech.

Leave a comment