The Rehnquist quote in question Courtesy of the Findlaw transcript
page 163 (link in the immediately prior post), here are the Chief Justice's
words that have been giving everyone in the reform community concern that
he might abandon Austin:
I think one of the -- one of the dubious things about Austin is one of the
things it relied on was the fact that the corporation's members or did not
-- or owners did not necessarily represent a large amount of public opinion,
and it seemed to me, I voted in the majority, but it seemed to me since then
that that's the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to allow people who
perhaps don't have much in the way of public opinion try to change public
opinion.
As I had mentioned in my earlier analysis of the afternoon session, this
doesn't mean the Chief is ready to abandon all rationales for treating
corporations differently. Indeed, it says nothing about his position in
Bellotti, where, in dissent, he stated his belief that corporations
could be barred from making campaign expenditures in connection with ballot
measure campaigns where the possibility of quid pro quo corruption is absent.
So it is hard to know how much to read into the Chief's statement.
--
Professor Rick Hasen
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-0019
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com