Justice Alito explains his rationale for Citizens United

I had not understood what the conservative justices' reasoning was for their terrible decision on Citizens United, except that it was supposed to affirm the idea that "corporations have the same right to free speech as do persons."

Was there some rationale beyond giving more power to corporations who donate big bucks to politicians?  And isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be above politics and payoffs?   (HA!!  Not since the 2000 decision that gave the presidency to George W. Bush, at least).

Justice Samuel Alito spoke to the Federalist Society (a group of conservative lawyers and legal scholars) and explained his vote.

As summarized in a New York Times editorial yesterday, Alito turned the question on its head and said that, without such affirmation that corporations have free speech rights, newspapers (which are corporations) would not have had the legal right to publish the Pentagon Papers and would have a harder time defending themselves against libel suits.

The rationale there is that both publishing the Pentagon Papers and defending against libel suits depend on the newspaper's freedom of the press.   Alito is equating that to freedom of speech for an individual and, by Supreme Court precedent, he says, to corporations.

The editorial took apart his argument, saying that he mistakes the corporate structure of media companies that publish newspapers for the newspapers' function in a democracy, which is to ensure an informed citizenry, through freedom of the press, so they can cast informed votes.

This distinction makes sense to me.   It is strengthened by the fact that reputable newspapers separate the function of the editorial board from the governing corporation, giving editorial writers complete freedom of content.   In addition, reputable newspapers (tv not so much) take pride in their presenting facts and challenging political distortions of fact to publish truth.

What the editors are saying, I believe, is that Alito's argument is faultily reasoned.  Newspaper corporations do not have to be declared to have free speech rights in order publish a paper that speaks freely in print, because that is in the nature of serious journalism.  That is a different order of freedom than being able to give anonymously unlimited millions of dollars to poltical groups to influence elections.

Ralph