Reconstruction of "The Court's Blow to Democracy

Ok, here's my reconstruction:

In "The Court's Blow to Democracy," the editorialist argues that the Supreme Court make the wrong decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The author offers an historical explanation along with two arguments to support the claim that restrictions on spending came about to prevent real harms to the democratic process. The founders were concerned about corporate power and an 1907 law banned their contributions to campaigns. The implied premise in this explanation is that abuses such as those of the "robber baron" period help explain why we have the restrictions the Supreme Court is now reversing. The intermediate conclusion is that allowing too much corporate influence in elections allows corruption. The author also argues for this claim later in the article by suggesting that candidates will know that corporations can outspend them, so they will capitulate to their interests. Also, John McCain is cited as expert testimony that the decision is naive in its thinking about the potential for corruption.

A second set of rationales support the claim that the was wrong on legal grounds. First, the court decided the case more broadly than necessary or wise. They rushed the process, and they were "judicially activist." But the biggest rationale for support of this second claim is that the court incorrectly judged corporations to be persons for the purpose of free speech. Corporates are not persons. They are legal entities created by the state for specific purposes. Therefore, it is a mistake to give them free speech in the political realm. These four arguments support the intermediate conclusion that the decision was wrong on legal grounds.

Alfino 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)