http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 3, 2010

WASHINGTON  In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence
Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Courts recent campaign
finance decision.

And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union
addresses  he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last
week to criticize the courts decision  because the gatherings had turned so
partisan.

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson
University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance
case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with
Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations
had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political
candidates.

I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were
The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company, Justice Thomas
said. These are corporations.

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an
exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas
said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional
principle.

He added that 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.

Justice Thomas said the First Amendments protections applied regardless of how
people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, youd say you
have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of
association, he said. If you all then formed a partnership to speak, youd say
we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.

But what if you put yourself in a corporate form? Justice Thomas asked,
suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United,
he said, If its wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.

Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obamas
criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.s mouthed
not true in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.

I dont go because it has become so partisan and its very uncomfortable for a
judge to sit there, he said, adding that theres a lot that you dont hear on TV
the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.

One of the consequences, he added in an apparent reference to last weeks
address, is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call
it that, in the speeches. Its just an example of why I dont go.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10