Page:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.pdf/79

Rh concurring No. 09–205

CITIZENS UNITED APPELLANT V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

On APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[January 21, 2010]

, with whom joins, and with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins in part, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court.

I write separately to address discussion of "Original Understandings," post, at 34 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part) (hereinafter referred to as the dissent). This section of the dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored.

Instead of taking this straightforward approach to determining the Amendment’s meaning, the dissent embarks on a detailed exploration of the Framers’ views about the "role of corporations in society." Post, at 35. The Framers didn’t like corporations, the dissent con-