Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “A lady asked Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic" replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it.” – Notes of Dr. James McHenry, published in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), in a footnote.

Today, five conservative activist Supreme Court Justices presided over the murder of our Republic and gave birth to the new "corporatocracy" in Citizens United v. FEC. It is nominally a First Amendment case, but it is so much more than that. This opinion will enter the pantheon of the worst decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, cases wrongly decided in favor of the wealthy and powerful ruling elite.

You can read the full opinion Scribd at SCOTUSblog » Citizens United v. FEC opinion

From the ABA Journal 5-4 Citizens United Ruling 'a Revolution in Campaign Finance Law':

The 5-4 ruling strikes down restrictions that had barred corporations from spending money from their general treasuries on campaign ads in the days before an election.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (PDF) in the long-awaited campaign finance ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The opinion overrules Supreme Court precedent.

* * *

The ruling overturns a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had upheld a ban on corporate spending to influence state races. It also overturns part of the 1993 decision McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that had upheld the federal restrictions on corporate independent expenditures.

Kennedy was joined in the First Amendment ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. All the justices except Clarence Thomas agreed with a portion of Kennedy's opinion upholding corporate disclosure requirements.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Kennedy wrote.

In his partial dissent, Thomas said Kennedy’s opinion did not go far enough to protect anonymous political speech.

Roberts wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., explaining why Austin should be overruled despite the importance of precedent. Free speech rights are not confined to individuals, he said. “The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer,” he wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented from the First Amendment ruling, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. He said that Citizens United had other alternatives under the campaign finance restriction struck down by the majority. Citizens United could have run the Hillary Clinton film outside the 30-day pre-election window when corporate electioneering was restricted. It could have promoted the video through a political action committee.

“The basic premise underlying the court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its 'identity' as a corporation,” Stevens wrote. “While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law.”

From the Washington Post Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns:

The decision upends the court's precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago. It seems likely to apply to the political role of labor unions as well.

The decision does not address the restriction on direct contributions to candidates, and it upholds disclosure requirements for groups that mount advertising campaigns for and against candidates.

The far-reaching ruling marks a triumph for groups that have fought the McCain-Feingold provisions, formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

* * *

The court's liberal bloc, which included new Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the case, dissented. Justice John Paul Stevens took more than 20 minutes to read a dissent from the bench, a move justices reserve for emphasizing their disagreement.

"A radical change in the law," Stevens called the decision. He said Thursday's majority rejects the decisions of Congress dating from 1907 and "the overwhelming majority of justices who have served on this court."

He said the five-member majority are the only ones who believe corporate money in electoral politics should be increased, rather than controlled. Sotomayor and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his 90-page dissent.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who co-wrote the 2002 campaign reform law with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said he was "disappointed" by the decision. But Feingold went further, calling it "a terrible mistake" and saying it ignored "important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent."

"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president," Feingold added.

Both senators noted, though, that the court had retained the law's ban on so-called soft money contributions.

* * *

Fred Wertheimer, a veteran campaign reform activist who heads Democracy 21, called the ruling "a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court."

"In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from 'influence-buying' corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five Supreme Court Justices today came down in favor of American corporations," Wertheimer said. "With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

From the New York Times Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits:

Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

* * *

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

Stevens dissent is critical to understanding why this case is wrongly decided. What none of the superficial press reporting I have seen today has reported, but what was critical to the majority's opinion to treat corporate entities the same as persons is the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), in which the court is purported to have recognized the legal fiction of "corporate personhood" under the 14th Amendment.