Though I erred in referring the freedom of speech phrase of the 1st amendment to "the people", that does not change the faultiness of  Floyd Abrams' masterful exposition. It is because it is an example of the "GOONEY BIRD SYNDROME". The Gooney bird is an albatross, and  also the nickname for a WWII transport plane. The syndrome describes a bird that fails in its effort to fly forward because it is looking backward, and heads for a collision. Maxie Maultsby , a friend and eminent psychiatrist, has used this  effectively in describing the irrationality of addictive behavior.

The Citizens United decision, in my opinion, falls into the category of the syndrome. It is based on  an obviously valid concept, but totally non-contextually. Freedom of speech is essential to a democratic society, and minimally or not regulating  to any  extent,  was valid in the 18th century. However, with modern technology and practices, the avalanche of money pouring into the political campaign makes a travesty of a so-called democratic process. The magnitude of this since the Citizens United decision is frightening.

With the Courts' current Orginalist majority, and their inability to entertain what Goethe described as "provisional bases of certitude",  there is need for a constitutional amendment challenging money as free speech and challenging corporate personhood. Public Financing of Elections would eliminate much of the negatives, but it is doubtful that the current Court majority would accept it.

Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism. warned of corruption of the system by the  entrepeneur accumulating capital and power. He called for regulation and he was referring to such as the East Indies Corporation. The Founding Fathers, with their European roots, knew of Adam Smith and his warnings. It is clear from the writing of the majority of them, that they considered the Common Good as the whetstone by which they would abide. Provisional bases of certitude as a guiding principle, rather than irrevocable certitude, is what is needed in our society. 

 Richard C. Bozian M.D. F.A.C.P.
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

---

Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:31:38 -0700
From: richardwinger@yahoo.com
Subject: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu; rcbozian@hotmail.com

The freedom of speech part of the First Amendment does not refer to "the people."  The sentence is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --- On Sat, 10/2/10, Richard C. Bozian <rcbozian@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Richard C. Bozian <rcbozian@hotmail.com> Subject: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010, 9:38 AM Floyd Abrams has written a masterful exposition of the Citizens United decision. It is a  classical repetition of the fallacy of Xeno's Paradox which had the hare never catching the tortoise. One can justify anything by starting with a faulty assumption. He justifies the decision on the basis of the 1st Amendment. The  1st amendment  refers to freedom of speech of "the people". Corporations are not people anymore than  is a robot performing human feats. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that emerged from an  interpretation of a court's deliberation  that never examined or even considered  corporate personhood.  I am impressed only with his craftsmanship. Richard C. Bozian M.D. F.A.C.P. Professor Emeritus of Medicne University of Cincinnati. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ election-law mailing list election-law@mailman.lls.edu http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

=

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law