Corporate Personhood and the Stretching of the First Amendment

In a recent decision (Nevada Commission of Ethics v. Carrigan) the Supreme Court backed away from its Citizens United perspective to strike down a Nevada state court ruling that a vote by a legislator is protected speech.

I am no conservative by any measure, but the loose interpretation of the first amendment that came out of the Citizens United was chilling. I can't imagine, with any stretch of the imagination, how a corporation could have first amendment rights and how campaign spending is tantamount to free speech.

Looking at past jurisprudence, you can see how corporations began to be recognized as people. In the case Dartmouth College v Woodward, the Supreme Court applied the right to contract to an educational institution and corporation (Dartmouth College) when they ruled the state of Maryland could not change the school's charter (as it is a contract). In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations were recognized as people for the purposes of applying the XIV Amendment.

Michael A Carrigan was censured by the NV Ethics Commission for voting as a Sparks city councilman on a hotel that also hired his friend as a consultant. NV Ethics law requires that an legislator recuse themselves from cases involving someone who they are related to or have a "substantially similar" relationship with. The NV state court ruled in his favor, saying that voting is protected first amendment speech.

But, the Supreme court ruled unanimously that a vote by an individual legislator is not protected speech and reversed the decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said that the legislators vote is his responsibility as a part of the legislature to approve or repeal proposals. The power therein is committed to him by the people, so the legislator has no personal right to it.

It is about time the Supreme Court stopped cow-towing to those who want to gut conflict of interest laws in the name of stretching the First Amendment to its breaking point. This decision finally allows for citizens to hold their elected officials to the highest ethical standards.