So, is there some secret I'm out of the loop on?

[HForrest]

For the past two years now, I've heard people on the left continually whine about FEC vs. Citizens United. I have heard all sorts of claims about this case, how it "gets rid of (somewhere between 30-100) years of precedent" and now the "floodgates have opened!!!" to corporate campaign financing, and how this is some monumental case that reverses everything in American politics and destroys any concept of legitimate democracy.

Now, from everything I have read about this case, my understanding is the following: The BCRA of 2002 contained a specific provision banning "electioneering communications" within 30 days of an election, or something like that. Citizens United attempted to produce a video and were accosted by the FEC for violating the law. The case went to SCOTUS, and because the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly prohibits government action against free speech and the free printing of media, there were luckily still five justices on the court who managed to conclude that a law banning the production of media is inconsistent with the First Amendment. So the specific portion of the 2002 BCRA that banned "electioneering communications" was overturned. To my knowledge, this is the extent of what happened in the Citizens United case. Am I correct in my interpretation of events? I recall nothing about "corporate personhood" being decided, or anything about the status of any other laws besides one specific provision in the McCain Feingold law from 2002.

Now, I am thoroughly confused, because progressive types can't stop talking about what a catastrophic horrible decision this is, how American Democracy is never going to be the same, and how it's all somehow because the Koch Brothers bought the conservative justices on the court. Is there a memo I didn't receive? Is there some more in-depth analysis of the case somewhere that I haven't seen? Were there other secret decisions made that I am unaware of?

All I see is that a law (from 2002, not 1910) banning the production of political media by private individuals was shut down on First Amendment grounds. Does anyone care to enlighten me about what I've missed here?

[zxcvbob]

There was a memo, but we were instructed not to tell you about it.  So we can't go into the details.  Sorry. 

[Perd Hapley]

All I see is that a law (from 2002, not 1910) banning the production of political media by private individuals was shut down on First Amendment grounds. Does anyone care to enlighten me about what I've missed here?

There is the little fact that news media would not have been regulated by such a law. And we know which way most of those swing.

[230RN]

That whole thing ticked me off no end. And with respect to your current sig line, f i s t f u l, it maybe should be amended thus:

"We have them out-brained, but not out-media-ed."

Terry, 230RN

ETA: Had to break up your handle to individual letters to defeat the current April Fool's Day automatic substitution by the site to "He who shall n o t be named."  This pink stuff is fun, but enough is enough.

[drewtam]

Here is a good law blog...

http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/citizens-united/

another
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

[zxcvbob]

That whole thing ticked me off no end. And with respect to your current sig line, f i s t f u l, it maybe should be amended thus:

"We have them out-brained, but not out-media-ed."

Terry, 230RN

ETA: Had to break up your handle to individual letters to defeat the current April Fool's Day automatic substitution by the site to "He who shall n o t be named."  This pink stuff is fun, but enough is enough.

We can't say "fıstful" today?  I hadn't notıced.  Weırd.

[AJ Dual]

The main thrust of the decision is that time/money restrictions or blackout periods on corporate political money spent to engage in "speech" (political advertising) was an unconstitutional restriction of their First Amendment rights.

Of course conveniently, the previous cases or laws that said this was okay exempted the unions from this.   Equal protection based on that fact was part of the reasoning of the decision. Sauce for the goose...

The main thrust of the Left's whining over this is that "Corporations Aren't People" (wah!) And therefore aren't protected by the Constitution. I guess the hypocrisy that "the People" suddenly means something collective when the Left considers the Second Amendment is lost on them. 

Of course, the idea that a corporation is a bunch of individual people, banded together for some common purpose is also something they conveniently try hard not to consider either.