Corporate political expenditures gained full free-speech protection in 2010

Evidence

In January 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled against government bans on corporate contributions to super PACS, political action committees formed to support a candidate outside the auspices of her or his campaign. Calling such bans an abridgement of free speech and giving corporations the standing of persons with an unqualified right to political speech, the ruling permits corporate money to overwhelm the election process. — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 298

Categorization

• XREF: Anchors the corporate-speech analysis developed in chapter 8 of the book against constitutional personhood debates. — connects to: US courts interpret the First Amendment to protect data gathering as corporate free speech. — Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data Is…, 550; Citizens United redefines influence as following the money and super PACS as independent speech — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 345; Corporate speech doctrine reasserts a feudal conception of corporate self-rule — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 351

Broader Connections

• Citizens United redefines influence as following the money and super PACS as independent speech #expands (0.95) — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos, 345
• Corporate speech doctrine reasserts a feudal conception of corporate self-rule #complicates (0.80) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 351