In a Q & A at a law school in Florida, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gives his take on why the Court was right in its recent decision on corporations and free speech. What I find interesting is Thomas gives a little history on how the limiting of speech by corporations started in the first place. He states,
"...the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907."
"Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation," Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. "Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them."
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as "some sort of beatific action."
Interesting, isn't it? In the fear over the corrupting influence of lots of money, some folk haven't even considered the corrupting influence of regulating speech.
I welcome all comments on Justice Thomas' comments. No ad hominem arguments are allowed. Substance only please.
You can read the full story here.
+ + + + + + +
Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian