Perhaps but until they rule that way, they're not the ones responsible for that ruling. Anyone who follows more of the Court's rulings than just the ones the press decides to highlight will notice how frequently judges from "the other side" end up agreeing. In addition to the many 9-0 rulings, there are many split rulings where the split isn't based on which party's president nominated that justice.
The other thing I hear a lot is: corporations aren't people! But they're made of people. I want the EFF and ACLU and SAF and Humane Society to be able to advocate on my behalf. That's why I give them money.
> During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book.
Given that, is it an surprise that the Supreme Court found that it conflicted with the First Amendment?
