Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(Wikipedia article)

(decision)

I'm in agreement with this decision. There's no reason to bar political speech just because it is paid speech or who the speaker is, yet the voters should be aware who is paying. Thomas' hyperlibertarian dissent to Part IV of Kennedy's opinion is to be expected, yet ignores that there are remedies for threats to life and limb because of one's political views.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not yet familiar enough with campaign finance law to form an opinion of the decision or the ramifications of the decision, but I do hope that Congress passes a law so that political speech by corporations is subject to the same rules as those by political individuals.

As a quick example, if Goldman Sachs wants to run an ad for Candidate X, the ad should have to include Lloyd Blankfein saying, "I am Lloyd Bankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and I approve this message."

Part IV of Kennedy's opinion, which was supported 8-1, addressed that issue and corporations do have disclosure requirements.  Thomas, who dissented from that part of Kennedy's opinion, also prefers uniformity in treatment, but with everyone allowed to be anonymous.