[jmyeet]

Except that what we've done is not given the ability of groups of people to be heard per se, we've given disproportionately powerful voices to the wealthy and allowed corporations to dictate policy to an extent that almost no individual ever could.

[chipsa]

The government argument in the case was: there is no limits to the government's power with respect to corporate speech during an election.

> During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book.

Given that, is it an surprise that the Supreme Court found that it conflicted with the First Amendment?