The Dogmatic Corporate Speech Police...

George Will’s latest column in the Washington Post examines the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a state ban of corporate political campaign contributions in defiance of the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Because of US Supreme Court precedence and the absence of any changes to the first amendment of the United States Constitution the Montana decision is unconstitutional and will be struck down on appeal. Will’s column is interesting in that it introduces Montana's issue to many who wouldn’t otherwise know about it. More interesting is the comments on the article. There are many people unhappy with the Citizens United decision and the biggest reason is that some claim that corporations do not have a right to free speech because corporations are not people and that the right to free speech in the first amendment is an individual and not collective right. This line of thought is a distinction without a foundation. The first amendment of the constitution reads in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing there about individual or collective rights, simply that congress shall (a legally binding word) make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Besides that, what is a corporation other than a group of people? If there is a desire to change the first amendment to divide rights between individuals and groups then those opposed to corporate personhood can try it (good luck with that), otherwise they have no validity. Just because they don’t like corporate speech doesn’t change that it’s speech.