SHARE
TRANSCRIPT
| TIME | SPEAKER | TEXT |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07 |
|
THE ARGUMENT THIS MORNING IN CASE 08205, CITIZENS UNITED VERSUS THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. ... |
| 00:00:16 |
|
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. ROBUST DEBATE ABOUT CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE... |
| 00:01:45 |
|
MR. OLSON, ARE YOU TAKING THE POSITION THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF... |
| 00:02:14 |
|
WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONTEXT, "NEW YORK TIMES" VERSUS SULLIVAN, GROSJEAN... |
| 00:02:31 |
|
WOULD THAT INCLUDE TODAY'S MEGACORPORATIONS WHERE MANY OF THE INVESTORS MAY BE FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS... |
| 00:02:41 |
|
THE COURT IN THE PAST HAS MADE NO DISTINCTION BASED UPON THE NATURE OF THE ENTITY THAT MIGHT OWN A... |
| 00:02:49 |
|
OWN ANY SHARES? |
| 00:02:51 |
|
PARDON? |
| 00:02:54 |
|
NOWADAYS, THERE ARE FOREIGN INTERESTS, EVEN FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, THAT OWN NOT ONE SHARE BUT A GOODLY... |
| 00:03:04 |
|
I SUBMIT THAT THE COURT'S DECISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CORPORATIONS HAVE IN... |
| 00:03:11 |
|
COULD THEY, IN YOUR VIEW, IN THE VIEW THAT YOU'RE PUTTING FORTH, THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN... |
| 00:03:31 |
|
I'M NOT SAYING THAT, JUSTICE GINSBURG. I'M SAYING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES. THEN THE NEXT... |
| 00:04:14 |
|
DO YOU THINK CONGRESS COULD PREVENT FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS FROM FUNDING SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES ELECTIONS?... |
| 00:04:23 |
|
THE -- |
| 00:04:26 |
|
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, FOREIGNERS WHO WANT TO -- |
| 00:04:28 |
|
THAT'S, OF COURSE, A DIFFERENT QUESTION. I HAVEN'T STUDIED IT, JUSTICE SCALIA. |
| 00:04:32 |
|
WELL, I ASKED IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS RELATED. |
| 00:04:36 |
|
THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE IS -- AND LET ME START WITH THIS. AND I THINK WE SHOULD START WITH THIS.... |
| 00:04:48 |
|
MR. OLSON, WOULD YOU ANSWER JUSTICE GINSBURG'S QUESTION, YES OR NO? LEGALLY FOREIGN INVESTORS, DOES... |
| 00:05:01 |
|
I HAVE NOT -- I'M NOT AWARE OF A CASE THAT JUSTICE -- |
| 00:05:05 |
|
I'M NOT ASKING YOU THAT. IN YOUR VIEW, DOES IT PERMIT THAT DISTINCTION? |
| 00:05:08 |
|
MY VIEW IS BASED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND MY VIEW WOULD BE THAT UNLESS THERE'S A COMPELLING... |
| 00:05:15 |
|
IF THERE IS A COMPELLING -- CAN THERE BE ANY CASE IN WHICH THERE'S A DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF CORPORATIONS... |
| 00:05:22 |
|
I WOULD NOT RULE THAT OUT, JUSTICE STEVENS. I MEAN, I CAN'T IMAGINE ALL OF THE INFINITE VARIETIES... |
| 00:05:47 |
|
MR. OLSON, DO YOU THINK THAT MEDIA CORPORATIONS THAT ARE OWNED OR PRINCIPALLY OWNED BY FOREIGN SHAREHOLDERS... |
| 00:05:59 |
|
I DON'T THINK SO, JUSTICE ALITO. AND CERTAINLY THERE'S NO RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S ANY KIND... |
| 00:06:50 |
|
YOU USED THE WORD "PROHIBITION," MR. OLSON. ONE ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT NO ENTITY IS BEING PROHIBITED,... |
| 00:07:28 |
|
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. THE CORPORATION MAY NOT EXPEND MONEY. IT MIGHT FIND PEOPLE. STOCKHOLDERS... |
| 00:07:53 |
|
WHO IS THE "YOU"? THOSE ARE THE DIRECTORS? THE CEO? NOT THE SHAREHOLDERS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY... |
| 00:08:04 |
|
WELL, THIS STATUTE IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THE SHAREHOLDERS AGREE OR DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THE... |
| 00:08:21 |
|
IT COVERS TOTALLY -- TOTALLY OWNED CORPORATIONS, TOO, DOESN'T IT? |
| 00:08:24 |
|
YES. |
| 00:08:26 |
|
ALL THE STOCK IN THE CORPORATION STILL CAN'T -- |
| 00:08:28 |
|
YES, AND IT INCLUDES MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS SUCH AS CITIZENS UNITED. |
| 00:08:32 |
|
THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION ALSO COVERS PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE $2,500 INSTEAD OF $2,400, WHICH... |
| 00:08:53 |
|
NO -- WELL, WHAT THIS COURT HAS SAID IS THAT IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS, THERE IS... |
| 00:09:04 |
|
YEAH. |
| 00:09:06 |
|
BUT EXPENDITURES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, DO NOT CONCERN THE QUESTION -- THE ACTUAL... |
| 00:09:26 |
|
SO HERE THE OBVIOUS ARGUMENT IS LOOK, THEY SAID THE COMPELLING INTEREST IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THAT... |
| 00:10:10 |
|
WELL, IN THE FIRST PLACE, I ACCEPT WHAT THE COURT SAID IN BUCKLEY THAT EXPENDITURES DO NOT RAISE THAT... |
| 00:11:06 |
|
I AGREE THAT BUCKLEY MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES. AND IT SEEMS TO... |
| 00:11:48 |
|
WELL, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF THERE'S ANY -- |
| 00:11:51 |
|
BUCKLEY -- |
| 00:11:53 |
|
BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IS THAT ALWAYS TRUE? |
| 00:11:57 |
|
WELL, IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE TRUE. IN THE INFINITE POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JUSTICE... |
| 00:12:21 |
|
WELL, OF COURSE, IT DID, WAS A BASIS FOR PROHIBITING SPEECH BY IN THE SENSE OF GIVING CONTRIBUTIONS... |
| 00:13:09 |
|
YOU MUST ALWAYS SECOND-GUESS CONGRESS WHEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS IN PLAY. AND WE'RE ARGUING -- WE... |
| 00:13:16 |
|
YES. |
| 00:13:20 |
|
BOTH THE COMPELLING -- BOTH A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST AND THE NARROW TAILORING. AND THERE... |
| 00:13:47 |
|
WHAT ABOUT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING? WASN'T THERE A FINDING BEFORE THE THREE-JUDGE COURT THAT... |
| 00:14:15 |
|
THE -- YES. THERE IS SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION. BUT IT DOESN'T COVER... |
| 00:14:28 |
|
SO IF THEY JUST COVERED LARGE CORPORATIONS, SO YOU TAKE OUT THE MOM AND POP SINGLE SHAREHOLDER -- |
| 00:14:33 |
|
WELL, THAT'S 97% OF THE CORPORATION. |
| 00:14:37 |
|
NOT 97% OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS. I MEAN, THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT COUNT ARE THE ONES FROM THE CORPORATIONS... |
| 00:14:49 |
|
I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO JUSTICE KENNEDY'S QUESTION, AND MY RESPONSE WHICH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN... |
| 00:15:40 |
|
COUNSEL, IN YOUR DISCUSSION OF AUSTIN, YOU RELY ON ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH BELOTTI. THAT, OF COURSE,... |
| 00:15:57 |
|
WELL, IT IS WHAT THE BELLOTTI COURT SAID IS THAT WE'RE NOT DECIDING THAT QUESTION. AND AUSTIN DID... |
| 00:16:07 |
|
MORE THAN SAID WE'RE NOT DECIDING, IT SAID THEY'RE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. YOU READ THAT IN... |
| 00:16:15 |
|
YES. AND I ALSO READ THE FOOTNOTE 14 IN THE BELLOTTI CASE THAT CITED CASE AFTER CASE AFTER CASE THAT... |
| 00:16:36 |
|
IT'S BEEN REPEATED. THAT FOOTNOTE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY CITED IN SUBSEQUENT CASES, MOST OF WHICH WERE... |
| 00:16:47 |
|
WELL, BECAUSE -- AND I AGREE, THE BELLOTTI COURT WAS NOT DISCUSSING THAT. |
| 00:16:51 |
|
IT DID DISCUSS IT PRECISELY IN THAT FOOTNOTE, IT SAID IT'S A DIFFERENT CASE. |
| 00:16:55 |
|
I UNDERSTAND AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, JUSTICE STEVENS. |
| 00:17:01 |
|
IT SAID WE'RE NOT DECIDING. |
| 00:17:02 |
|
THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. |
| 00:17:05 |
|
I DON'T MIND CITING THAT. BELLOTTI DIDN'T DECIDE THAT. |
| 00:17:08 |
|
WHAT BELLOTTI ALSO SAID, AND I THINK THIS IS ALSO IN MANY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THE INHERENT WORTH... |
| 00:17:24 |
|
NOW THAT WE'VE CLEARED UP THAT BELLOTTI DIDN'T DECIDE THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE DISTINCTION THAT --... |
| 00:17:53 |
|
THERE IS A DISTINCTION, BUT I THINK THE DISTINCTION GOES BACK TO "A," EXPENDITURES VERSUS CONTRIBUTIONS.... |
| 00:18:13 |
|
WHERE DID WE SAY THAT? |
| 00:18:15 |
|
YOU SAID THAT REPEATEDLY INCLUDING MOST RECENTLY IN THE WISCONSIN RIGHT-TO-LIFE CASE. AND IT FIRST... |
| 00:18:44 |
|
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE COURT MADE THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION. IT SAID THE DISTINCTION... |
| 00:18:55 |
|
WELL, BUT THE WORDS OF -- |
| 00:18:57 |
|
DIFFICULT TO DRAW ON IN SOME CASES, BUT NOBODY SAID THERE'S NO DISTINCTION THAT I'M AWARE OF. |
| 00:19:03 |
|
WELL, TO USE THE WORDS OF THE COURT WHICH OCCURRED REPEATEDLY IS THAT THE DISTINCTION DISSOLVES IMPRACTICAL... |
| 00:19:31 |
|
I THOUGHT THAT BUCKLEY HAD NARROWED THE STATUTE PRECISELY TWO MAGIC WORDS AND STILL FOUND IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL... |
| 00:19:43 |
|
YES. |
| 00:19:44 |
|
ISN'T THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN BUCKLEY? |
| 00:19:46 |
|
THE $1,000 LIMIT IN BUCKLEY WAS FIRST OF ALL LIMITED TO THE MAGIC WORDS "CANDIDACY EXPRESSION." THEN... |
| 00:20:04 |
|
AND SOME OF THE PLAINTIFFS WERE CORPORATIONS. |
| 00:20:06 |
|
SOME OF THE PLAINTIFFS WERE CORPORATIONS. AND THE CASES -- |
| 00:20:10 |
|
DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION, WAS IT? |
| 00:20:11 |
|
IT WASN'T DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION. WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION WAS THE BREADTH OF THE DEFINITION... |
| 00:21:07 |
|
IF THAT'S SO, THIS IS A POINT THAT IS CONCERNING ME. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER PRECISELY. BUT SUPPOSE... |
| 00:21:57 |
|
I THINK YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCE. THERE ARE 27 STATES THAT HAVE NO LIMITATIONS ON EITHER... |
| 00:22:08 |
|
NO, I'M NOT -- I'M SAYING, AM I RIGHT IN THINKING THAT IF YOU WIN, THE POLITICAL PARTY CAN'T SPEND... |
| 00:22:25 |
|
WELL, IF THE COURT DECIDES IN FAVOR OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE ARE MAKING HERE, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE... |
| 00:22:38 |
|
NO, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT. I AM SUGGESTING WE'LL MAKE A HASH OF THE STATUTE. AND IF WE'RE GOING... |
| 00:23:03 |
|
I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT IN THIS WAY. AND I SAID WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE THAT MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT... |
| 00:24:02 |
|
WELL, WITH REFERENCE TO ANY INKONG RUITIES THAT MIGHT FLOW FROM OUR ADOPTING YOUR POSITION, ARE YOU... |
| 00:24:19 |
|
NO, I'M NOT, AND I THINK THAT WAS WHAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO WHAT JUSTICE BREYER... |
| 00:24:25 |
|
MR. OLSON, ARE YOU GIVING UP ON YOUR EARLIER ARGUMENTS THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO AVOID THE CONSTITUTIONAL... |
| 00:24:50 |
|
NO, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR. THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF LINES THAT THE COURT COULD DRAW WHICH WOULD PROVIDE... |
| 00:25:28 |
|
MR. OLSON, MY DIFFICULTY IS THAT YOU MAKE VERY IMPASSIONED ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHY THIS IS A BAD SYSTEM... |
| 00:26:08 |
|
I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THAT. THERE ARE SEVERAL ANSWERS TO IT, AND I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THE BALANCE... |
| 00:26:35 |
|
BUT THE CHALLENGE -- |
| 00:26:37 |
|
MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION AND YOU CAN ANSWER ON REBUTTAL. NO ONE HAS COMMENTED ON THE NATIONAL RIFLE... |
| 00:26:57 |
|
I WILL, JUSTICE. THANK YOU. |
| 00:26:58 |
|
WHY DON'T YOU TELL US NOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU TIME FOR REBUTTAL. |
| 00:27:05 |
|
DON'T KEEP US IN SUSPENSE. |
| 00:27:06 |
|
EVERY LINE INCLUDING THE LINES THAT WOULD BE DRAWN IN SEVERAL OF THE AMICUS BRIEFS -- AND THEY'RE... |
| 00:27:38 |
|
BUT THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, THE LINE SUGGESTED BY THE NRA IS THE LINE IDENTIFIED BY CONGRESS IN... |
| 00:27:55 |
|
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF JUSTICE STEVENS' OFFER AND RESPOND TO THAT DURING THE REBUTTAL,... |
| 00:28:21 |
|
THANK YOU, MR. OLSON. |
| 00:28:23 |
|
MR. ABRAMS? |
| 00:28:24 |
|
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THE FIRST CASE CITED TO YOU BY MR. OLSON HAPPENED... |
| 00:29:51 |
|
MR. ABRAMS, "TIMES" AGAINST SULLIVAN WAS NOT -- DID NOT INVOLVE OVERRULING PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT... |
| 00:30:04 |
|
THAT'S TRUE, YOUR HONOR. IT DID INVOLVE OVERRULING 150 YEARS OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE. I MEAN, THERE... |
| 00:30:15 |
|
THERE WAS NO RULING OF THIS COURT. |
| 00:30:16 |
|
THAT'S TRUE, YOUR HONOR. |
| 00:30:19 |
|
TO ADHERE TO OUR PRECEDENTS, ESPECIALLY A CASE LIKE AUSTIN WHICH WAS REPEATING THE BUSINESS ABOUT... |
| 00:30:56 |
|
AND WHAT I'M URGING ON YOU, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT BY A PARITY OF REASONING, ALTHOUGH NOT PRECISELY THE... |
| 00:31:38 |
|
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO YOUR POSITION. ONE IS -- ONE... |
| 00:32:05 |
|
RIGHT. |
| 00:32:08 |
|
AND STARE DECISIS, OF COURSE, IS A QUESTION MUCH BRIEFED BY THE PARTIES, AND IT IS ONE WHICH INVOLVES,... |
| 00:32:41 |
|
WHAT THE COURT SAID IN AUSTIN, IT ALSO SAID IN THE NRWC CASE, WHICH WAS, I THINK, EIGHT YEARS BEFORE... |
| 00:32:57 |
|
WELL, AUSTIN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT CORPORATE SPEECH WAS CORPORATE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES WERE... |
| 00:33:18 |
|
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN LIMITS ON CORPORATE SPENDING IN AID OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SINCE THE TURN OF THE... |
| 00:33:27 |
|
THERE HAD BEEN LIMITS ON CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS SINCE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY. CORPORATE INDEPENDENT... |
| 00:33:37 |
|
MUCH LATER IN 1947, RIGHT? |
| 00:33:41 |
|
YES, YOUR HONOR. 1947. PRESIDENT TRUMAN VETOED THAT BILL SAYING THAT IT WAS A DANGEROUS INTRUSION... |
| 00:34:12 |
|
THOSE WERE REUNION CASES, WEREN'T THEY? |
| 00:34:14 |
|
YES, THEY WERE THREE UNION CASES. AND THE CASE AFTER THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS BUCKLEY. AND BUCKLEY HELD... |
| 00:34:56 |
|
HAVE YOU READ JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S DISSENT IN THE BELLOTTI CASE? |
| 00:34:59 |
|
I'M SORRY? |
| 00:35:01 |
|
HAVE YOU READ JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S DISSENT IN THE BELLOTTI CASE? |
| 00:35:06 |
|
WHICH IS SOMEWHAT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SAID. |
| 00:35:09 |
|
IT IS. |
| 00:35:10 |
|
AND ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH |
| 00:35:11 |
|
THAT'S RIGHT. |
| 00:35:19 |
|
YES, YES. YES, YOUR HONOR. |
| 00:35:22 |
|
GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF STARE DECISIS, THE ONE THING THAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS AREA OF LAW... |
| 00:37:04 |
|
YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK YOU'D BE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD IN VINDICATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS... |
| 00:39:00 |
|
THANK YOU, MR. ABRAMS. |
| 00:39:01 |
|
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I HAVE THREE QUICK POINTS TO MAKE ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S... |
| 00:39:20 |
|
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. WE NEVER QUESTIONED IT, BUT WE NEVER APPROVED IT EITHER. AND WE GAVE SOME... |
| 00:39:33 |
|
I'LL REPEAT WHAT I SAID, JUSTICE SCALIA. FOR 100 YEARS THIS COURT, FACED WITH MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO... |
| 00:39:54 |
|
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT A SELF-STARTING INSTITUTION HERE. WE ONLY... |
| 00:40:14 |
|
WELL, YOU'RE NOT A SELF-STARTING INSTITUTION, BUT MANY LITIGANTS BROUGHT MANY CASES TO YOU FROM 1907... |
| 00:40:30 |
|
BUT THAT JUDGMENT WAS VALIDATED BY BUCKLEY'S CONTRIBUTION EXPENDITURE LINE. AND YOU'RE CORRECT IF... |
| 00:41:03 |
|
WELL, I THINK JUSTICE STEVENS WAS RIGHT IN SAYING THAT THE EXPENDITURE LIMITS THAT ARE IN PLAY IN... |
| 00:41:50 |
|
BEFORE THAT, MAY I ASK YOU TO CLARIFY ONE PART OF THE FIRST, NAMELY YOUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION I... |
| 00:42:07 |
|
THAT WAS MY THIRD POINT, JUSTICE STEVENS. |
| 00:42:09 |
|
OH, I'M SORRY. |
| 00:42:11 |
|
SO WE'LL JUST SKIP OVER THE SECOND. MY THIRD POINT IS THAT THIS IS AN ANOMALOUS CASE IN PART BECAUSE... |
| 00:42:29 |
|
SO YOU'RE GIVING UP THE DISTINCTION FROM MCFL THAT YOU DEFENDED IN YOUR OPENING BRIEF? THERE YOU SAID... |
| 00:42:40 |
|
NO, I DON'T THINK WE'RE CHANGING IT. MCFL IS THE LAW, AND THE FEC HAS ALWAYS TRIED TO IMPLEMENT MCFL... |
| 00:42:54 |
|
SO I GUESS DO YOU THINK MCFL APPLIES IN THIS CASE EVEN THOUGH THE CORPORATION TAKES CORPORATE FUNDS... |
| 00:43:02 |
|
I DON'T THINK MCFL, AS WRITTEN, APPLIES IN THIS CASE. BUT I THINK THAT THE COURT COULD, AS LOWER COURTS... |
| 00:43:35 |
|
DO YOU THINK IT'S TOO STRICT? |
| 00:43:38 |
|
THE FEC HAS NO OBJECTION TO MCFL BEING ADJUSTED IN ORDER TO GIVE IT SOME FLEXIBILITY. WHAT THE -- |
| 00:43:44 |
|
SO YOU WANT TO GIVE UP THIS CASE, CHANGE YOUR POSITION AND BASICALLY SAY YOU LOSE SOLELY BECAUSE THE... |
| 00:43:54 |
|
SOLELY BECAUSE, I'M SORRY? |
| 00:43:55 |
|
BECAUSE OF THE QUESTION WE'VE POSED ON REARGUMENT? |
| 00:43:57 |
|
NO, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S FAIR. WE THINK -- WE CONTINUE TO T TNK THAT THEHEUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD... |
| 00:44:15 |
|
WHATASASE OF OURS -- WHAT CASE OF OURS SUGGESTS THAT THERE'S A HIERARCHY OF BASIS ON WHICH WE SHOULD... |
| 00:44:38 |
|
I THINK THE QUESTION REALLY IS THE COURT'S STANDARD PRACTICE OF DECIDING AS APPLIED CHALLENGES BEFORE... |
| 00:45:09 |
|
BUT IF YOU INSIST ON THE AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE, ISN'T THAT INCONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE LINE OF CASES... |
| 00:46:01 |
|
YOU KNOW, I THINK EVEN IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONTEXT, JUSTICE KENNEDY, THE COURT WILL NOT STRIKE... |
| 00:46:31 |
|
LET ME ASK YOU THIS. SUPPOSE THAT WE WERE TO RULE THAT NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS COULD NOT BE COVERED... |
| 00:46:42 |
|
WELL, I WOULD URGE YOU NOT TO DO THAT IN THAT KIND OF SWEEPING WAY BECAUSE THE REASON FOR THE NONPROFIT... |
| 00:46:57 |
|
SUPPOSE WE WERE TO SAY THAT. WOULD THE STATUTE THEN NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY OVERBROAD? |
| 00:47:02 |
|
WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT THE STATUTE IS SUBSTANTIALLY OVERBROAD RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU TOOK OUT CERTAIN... |
| 00:47:10 |
|
I'M ASKING YOU TO ASSUME THAT WE DROVE A NONPROFIT PROFIT DISTINCTION. THEN THE STATUTE, IT SEEMS TO... |
| 00:47:20 |
|
I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, YOU COULD DO A COUPLE THINGS. YOU COULD DO WHAT JUSTICE STEVENS SUGGESTED.... |
| 00:47:29 |
|
I DON'T THINK YOU REALLY CAUGHT WHAT I SUGGESTED BECAUSE YOU TREATED IT AS AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE MCFL.... |
| 00:47:37 |
|
I WAS GOING TO GO BACK. |
| 00:47:38 |
|
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ARGUES OR WHAT'S IN JEFFORDS. IT CORES ADS THAT ARE... |
| 00:47:49 |
|
YES, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, JUSTICE STEVENS, IS ESSENTIALLY STRIPPING THE WILLSTONE... |
| 00:48:00 |
|
TREATING THE SNOW-JEFFORDS AMENDMENT AS BEING THE CORRECT TEST, AND NOBODY'S EXPLAINED WHY THAT WOULDN'T... |
| 00:48:08 |
|
YES, AND THERE ARE SOME -- YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME REASONS THAT THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. THE WELLSTONE... |
| 00:48:30 |
|
IF WE GO THAT ROUTE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS CREATING AN ACCOUNTING INDUSTRY, AREN'T WE? CORPORATIONS... |
| 00:49:10 |
|
CONGRESS ALSO SAID IF YOU STRIKE DOWN THE WELLSTONE AMENDMENT, WE WANT THIS IN THE JEFRD JEFRDORDS... |
| 00:49:24 |
|
IF YOU STRIKE IT DOWN, WHAT'S LEFT IS THE SNOWE-JEFFORDS AMENDMENT, NOT PACs, JUST SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS... |
| 00:49:38 |
|
WHY IS THAT NOT THE WISEST, NARROWEST SOLUTION PUT BEFORE US? |
| 00:49:43 |
|
IT IS CERTAINLY A NARROWER AND I THINK BETTER SOLUTION THAN A FACIAL INVALIDATION OF THE WHOLE STATUTE.... |
| 00:49:48 |
|
WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND TO BE THE COMPELLING INTEREST THAT THE COURT AR DIG LATED EDTICULATED IN AUSTIN?... |
| 00:49:55 |
|
I THINK WHAT THE COURT ARTICULATED IN AUSTIN AND IN THE GOVERNMENT BRIEFS, WE'VE SUGGESTED THAT AUSTIN... |
| 00:50:19 |
|
RIGHT. BUT YOU'VE MORE OR LESS ABANDONED IS TOO STRONG A WORD, BUT AS YOU SAY, YOU'VE RELIED ON A... |
| 00:50:46 |
|
WELL, A COUPLE OF POINTS. THE FIRST THING IS, AS YOU SAY, WE HAVE NOT ABANDONED AUSTIN. WE HAVE SIMPLY... |
| 00:50:57 |
|
WHERE IN YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING DO YOU SAY THAT THIS AGGREGATION OF WEALTH INTEREST SUPPORTS AUSTIN?... |
| 00:51:04 |
|
I WOULD NOT REALLY CALL IT AN AGGREGATION OF WEALTH INTEREST. I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S A CONCERN ABOUT... |
| 00:51:15 |
|
PUTTING IT OUTSIDE, PUTTING THE QUID PRO INTEREST ASIDE, WHERE DO YOU SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARTICULATE IN... |
| 00:51:22 |
|
WELL, WE TALK ABOUT SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION AND WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE DISTORTION OF THE ELECTORAL... |
| 00:51:32 |
|
I UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE A DIFFERENT INTEREST. THAT'S THE SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION INTEREST AS OPPOSED... |
| 00:51:41 |
|
I THINK THAT THEY'RE CONNECTED BECAUSE BOTH COME -- |
| 00:51:43 |
|
SO AM I RIGHT AND IN SAYING IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING YOU DO NOT RELY AT ALL ON THE MARKET DISTORTION... |
| 00:52:00 |
|
WE DID NOT RELY AT ALL ON AUSTIN TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYBODY TAKES AUSTIN TO BE SUGGESTING ANYTHING... |
| 00:52:19 |
|
SO IF WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE AUSTIN, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR INVITATION THAT THE QUID PRO QUO INTEREST... |
| 00:52:31 |
|
I WOULD SAY EITHER THE QUID PRO QUO INTEREST, THE CORRUPTION INTEREST, OR THE SHAREHOLDER INTEREST... |
| 00:53:00 |
|
LET'S TALK ABOUT OVERBREADTH. LET'S ASSUME THAT THAT IS A VALID INTEREST. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL... |
| 00:53:49 |
|
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE SINGLE SHAREHOLDERS CAN PRESENT THESE CORRUPTION PROBLEMS. MANY CLOSED... |
| 00:53:58 |
|
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CORRUPTION INTEREST. YOU HAVE YOUR QUID PRO QUO ARGUMENT. THAT'S ANOTHER... |
| 00:54:21 |
|
YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, JUSTICE SCALIA. WHEN IT COMES TO SINGLE SHAREHOLDERS, THE KIND OF OTHER PEOPLE'S... |
| 00:54:30 |
|
THAT CAN'T BE THE JUSTIFICATION. BECAUSE IF IT WERE, THE STATUTE WOULD BE VASTLY OVERBURDENED. |
| 00:54:37 |
|
THERE THE STRONGEST JUSTIFICATION IS THE ANTICORRUPTION INTEREST. |
| 00:54:41 |
|
WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT THAT MORE THAN HALF THE STATES INCLUDING... |
| 00:55:08 |
|
I THINK THE EXPERIENCE OF SOME HALF THE STATES CANNOT BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE 100-YEAR-OLD JUDGMENT... |
| 00:55:19 |
|
CONGRESS HAS A SELF-INTEREST. I MEAN, WE ARE SUSPICIOUS OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT... |
| 00:55:48 |
|
I THINK, JUSTICE SCALIA, IT'S WRONG. IN FACT, CORPORATE AND UNION MONEY GO OVERWHELMINGLY TO INCUMBENTS.... |
| 00:56:41 |
|
BUT, YOUR HONOR, YOUR POSITION, IF A CORPORATION'S "A," "B" AND "C" ARE CALLED TO WASHINGTON EVERY... |
| 00:57:22 |
|
WELL -- |
| 00:57:24 |
|
WHEN OTHER CORPORATIONS, BECAUSE OF THE VERY FACT YOU JUST POINT OUT, HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED AND ARE... |
| 00:57:38 |
|
WELL, TO THE EXTENT, JUSTICE KENNEDY, THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS,... |
| 00:58:04 |
|
ONE OF THE AMICUS BRIEFS OBJECTS RESPONSE TO JUSTICE KENNEDY'S PROBLEM BY SAYING THE PROBLEM IS THAT... |
| 00:58:13 |
|
A LOT OF THEM DO, WHICH IS A SUGGESTION ABOUT HOW CORPORATIONS ENGAGE THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND HOW... |
| 00:58:38 |
|
WELL, THAT'S NOT -- I'M SORRY, BUT THAT SEEMS RATHER ODD. A LARGE CORPORATION JUST LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL... |
| 00:59:04 |
|
WELL, ALL I WAS SUGGESTING, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, IS THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE ACTUALLY A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION... |
| 00:59:18 |
|
SO IF A CANDIDATE -- LET'S TAKE A TOBACCO COMPANY -- AND A CANDIDATE RUNNING ON THE PLATFORM THAT... |
| 00:59:33 |
|
BUT EVERYTHING IS GEARED THROUGH THE CORPORATION'S SELF-INTEREST IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS, IN... |
| 00:59:53 |
|
WELL, I SUPPOSE SOME DO, BUT LET'S SAY IF YOU HAVE TEN INDIVIDUALSKORPGS WANT US TO DO. |
| 00:59:59 |
|
IF YOU HAVE TEN INDIVIDUALS AND THEY EACH CONTRIBUTE $1,000 TO THE CORPORATION AND SAY, WE WANT THIS... |
| 01:00:12 |
|
WELL, IT'S SOUND TO ME LIKE THE CORPORATION YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS THE CORPORATION OF THE KIND WE HAVE... |
| 01:00:29 |
|
GENERAL KEEGAN, MOST CORPORATIONS ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THEM. THE LOCAL... |
| 01:01:10 |
|
YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT SINGLE SHAREHOLDER CORPORATIONS I WOULD ASK WHY IT'S... |
| 01:01:44 |
|
WELL, SMALLER CORPORATIONS, AS JUSTICE SCALIA IS TALKING ABOUT. THEY CAN'T EVEN GIVE MONEY TO CHARITIES... |
| 01:01:58 |
|
I REMEMBER SPENDING QUITE A FEW DAYS ONE SUMMER READING THROUGH A THOUSAND PAGES OF OPINION IN THE... |
| 01:02:46 |
|
YES. |
| 01:02:49 |
|
IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THAT, I THINK, THAT THIS COURT UPHELD THE LAW IN BIKRA THAT WE HEARD FROM THE... |
| 01:03:16 |
|
THAT'S RIGHT, JUSTICE. IN ADDITION TO THE 100-YEAR-OLD JUDGMENT, THAT RECENTLY, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS... |
| 01:03:52 |
|
CAN I ASK, IT SEEMS -- TO YOUR SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION RATIONALE, ISN'T IT EXTRAORDINARILY PATTERNALISTIC... |
| 01:04:08 |
|
I DON'T THINK SO, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I, FOR ONE, CAN'T KEEP TRACK OF WHAT MY -- WHERE I HOLD -- |
| 01:04:17 |
|
WELL YOU HAVE A BUSY JOB. YOU CAN'T EXPECT -- |
| 01:04:20 |
|
IT'S NOT HAVE A HAVE A BUSY JOB IT'S -- |
| 01:04:22 |
|
BUT IT IS EXTRAORDINARY. THE IDEA AS I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE, IS THAT WE, THE GOVERNMENT, BIG BROTHER,... |
| 01:04:40 |
|
I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S NOT THAT I HAVE A BUSY JOB. IT'S THAT I, LIKE MOST AMERICANS OWN SHARES THROUGH... |
| 01:04:52 |
|
I UNDERSTAND. SO IT IS A PATTERNALISTIC INTEREST. WE, THE GOVERNMENT, HAVE TO PROTECT YOU NAIVE SHAREHOLDERS?... |
| 01:05:00 |
|
IN A WORLD IN WHICH MOST PEOPLE OWN STOCK THROUGH MUTUAL FUNDS. IN A WORLD IN WHICH MOST PEOPLE OWN... |
| 01:05:23 |
|
IN THAT RESPECT IT'S UNLIKE THE UNION BECAUSE THE WORKER WHO DOES NOT WANT TO AFFILIATE WITH THE UNION... |
| 01:05:39 |
|
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, JUSTICE GINSBURG. AND THE UNION CONTEXT IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT THE... |
| 01:05:54 |
|
DOES THAT MEAN THAT UNIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T THE SAME -- DOES THE SHAREHOLDER... |
| 01:06:07 |
|
YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THAT WITH RESPECT TO UNIONS, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION... |
| 01:06:47 |
|
IT'S NOT INVESTING IN OUR COUNTRY'S -- |
| 01:06:50 |
|
THE ARGUMENT -- |
| 01:06:52 |
|
IN THE COURSE OF THIS ARGUMENT HAVE YOU COVERED POINT TWO? |
| 01:06:56 |
|
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. |
| 01:06:58 |
|
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS SO MY NOTES ARE COMPLETE. |
| 01:07:03 |
|
I APPRECIATE THAT, JUSTICE KENNEDY. THAT WAS AN EXPLANATION OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THE CHIEF JUSTICE... |
| 01:07:20 |
|
I TAKE THE WE HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED YOUR SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION INTEREST? THIS IS A NEW ARGUMENT? |
| 01:07:27 |
|
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT'S FAIR. CERTAINLY, BILOTTI DOES NOT ACCEPT IT. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK... |
| 01:08:15 |
|
OTHER THAN THAT -- AND I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME AMBIGUITY THERE, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY IN OUR IS A HOLDING... |
| 01:08:37 |
|
WHICH WE THINK WAS IN AUSTIN. |
| 01:08:40 |
|
AUSTIN, I THOUGHT, WAS BASED ON THE AGGREGATION OF IMMENSE WEALTH BY CORPORATIONS. |
| 01:08:45 |
|
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AUSTIN IS NOT THE MOST CLEAR OPINION BUT THE WAY WE UNDERSTAND AUSTIN, WHAT AUSTIN... |
| 01:09:01 |
|
CAN YOU GIVE ME THE CITATION OF THE PAGE IN AUSTIN WHERE WE ACCEPTED THE SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION RATIONALE?... |
| 01:09:08 |
|
I THINK IT COMES WHEN THE COURT IS DISTINGUISHING MCFL AND THE MESSAGE OF THAT DISTINCTION OF MCFL... |
| 01:09:19 |
|
DO THE WORDS "SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION" APPEAR IN THE AUSTIN OPINION? |
| 01:09:25 |
|
I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND I DON'T WANT TO PUSH THIS TOO FAR. |
| 01:09:30 |
|
LET'S ASSUME THEY DON'T, THEN I'LL GET BACK TO MY QUESTION WHICH IS, YOU'RE ASKING US TO DEFEND THE... |
| 01:09:58 |
|
THE THING THAT'S CHANGED IS THE RECORD THAT CHANGED AND IT WAS VERY STRONG ON THE NOTION THAT THERE... |
| 01:10:10 |
|
IS THAT A "YES?" IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE ASKING US TO UPHOLD AUSTIN ON THE BASIS OF TWO ARGUMENTS,... |
| 01:10:23 |
|
IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, FAIR ENOUGH. |
| 01:10:26 |
|
AND TO UNDERCUT BUCKLEY IN SO DOING? |
| 01:10:28 |
|
WELL, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK BUCKLEY WAS ABOUT INDIVIDUALS, RATHER THAN CORPORATIONS. AND BUCKLEY... |
| 01:10:45 |
|
MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PRIOR ARGUMENT. AND THAT WAS -- IF CONGRESS COULD... |
| 01:11:16 |
|
THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER HAS CHANGED, JUSTICE GINSBURG. IT IS STILL TRUE THAT BIKRA 203 WHICH IS THE... |
| 01:12:11 |
|
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE? I THOUGHT OUR DOCTRINE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS IF YOU... |
| 01:12:27 |
|
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY OVERBROAD. IF I TELL YOU THE FCC HAS NEVER APPLIED THIS STATUTE... |
| 01:12:39 |
|
WE DON'T PUT OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THE HAND OF FFC BUREAUCRATS AND IF YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT GOING... |
| 01:12:50 |
|
I THINK A PAMPHLET WOULD BE DIFFERENT. A PAMPHLET IS PRETTY CLASSIC ELECTION. THIS IS NO ATTEMPT TO... |
| 01:13:01 |
|
WHAT IS THE PARTICULAR -- WHAT IF THE PARTICULAR MOVIE INVOLVED HERE HAD NOT BEEN DISTRIBUTED BY THE... |
| 01:13:38 |
|
WELL, NONE OF THOSE THINGS, AGAIN, ARE COVERED. |
| 01:13:41 |
|
NO, BUT COULD THEY? WHICH OF THEM COULD AND WHICH COULD NOT? I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY BOOKS |
| 01:13:46 |
|
YES. I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR BOOKS. NOBODY... |
| 01:14:07 |
|
SO YOU'RE A LAWYER ADVISING SOMEBODY THAT'S ABOUT TO COME UP WITH A BOOK AND YOU SAY, DON'T WORRY.... |
| 01:14:28 |
|
BUT THIS STATUTE DON'T COVER BOOKS. |
| 01:14:30 |
|
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THE ONLY STATUTE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE DOES NOT COVER BOOKS. SO 441 B WHICH... |
| 01:14:37 |
|
DOES COVER BOOKS. |
| 01:14:39 |
|
-- WHICH DOES COVER BOOKS EXCEPT WHAT I JUST SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE A GOOD AS APPLIED CHALLENGE AND... |
| 01:15:15 |
|
I'M SORRY WE SUGGESTED SOME IN THE LAST ARGUMENT. YOU HAVE A HISSELF RF OF UNION ORGANIZING IN POLITICS... |
| 01:15:25 |
|
I THINK THAT WOULDN'T BE COVERED, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE FEC IS VERY CAREFUL AND SAYS THIS IN ALL... |
| 01:15:55 |
|
THANK YOU, GENERAL? |
| 01:15:57 |
|
MR. WAXMAN? |
| 01:15:58 |
|
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, THE REQUIREMENT THAT CORPORATIONS FUND ELECTORAL ADD... |
| 01:17:22 |
|
ONE OF THE AMICUS BRIEFS, MAYBE PROFESSOR HAYWARD, SUGGESTED THAT THE HISTORY OF THIS 1947 PROVISION... |
| 01:17:42 |
|
WELL, I DON'T RECALL WHO THE PROFESSOR WAS EITHER, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BUT I RECALL PRETTY WELL THE... |
| 01:18:52 |
|
BUT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS IN THAT CONTEXT? IS THAT CLEAR? |
| 01:18:59 |
|
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, JUSTICE KENNEDY, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY DISTINCTION WHATSOEVER IN THAT... |
| 01:19:53 |
|
GREAT AGGREGATIONS OF WEALTH? THE BRIEF THINK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE AMICUS BRIEF BY THE CHAMBER... |
| 01:20:25 |
|
JUSTICE SCALIA, I TAKE YOUR POINT AND I THINK YOU'VE MADE THIS POINT FORCEFULLY MANY TIMES BEFORE.... |
| 01:21:01 |
|
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ANSWER. IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEY COULD SAY ALL CORPORATIONS... |
| 01:21:14 |
|
AND YOU CITIES, SCALIA, IF A SMALL CORPORATION OR ANY CORPORATION OF ANY SORT WANTS TO BRING AN AS-APPLIED... |
| 01:22:02 |
|
IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOREVER. NUMBER ONE, THE PHENOMENON OF TELEVISION ADS WHERE WE GET INFORMATION... |
| 01:22:29 |
|
JUSTICE KENNEDY, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT IS ACTUALLY TRUE THAT PATENTS ARE OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS AND... |
| 01:23:15 |
|
THIS IS PE4RPLEXING. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SOUND BYTES YOU HEAR ON TV. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE... |
| 01:23:31 |
|
MY POINT HERE IS, JAW CITY ALITO, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE DEMEANING THIS COURT WITH SOUND BYTES, THE... |
| 01:24:36 |
|
AND MY POINT IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING UNUSUAL WHATSOEVER ABOUT A CASE THAT THE PARTY SAYS, MY CONSTITUTIONAL... |
| 01:25:12 |
|
MR. OLSON WAS QUITE RIGHT, OORT MR. OLSON OR ABRAMS, I FIND IT SO DIFFICULT TO TELL THE TWO APART.... |
| 01:25:52 |
|
MR. WAXMAN, THE GOVERNMENT DID THAT HAVE OPPORTUNITY AND THE GOVERNMENT COMPILED A RECORD AND WHEN... |
| 01:26:13 |
|
THAT'S BECAUSE -- I ASSUME I |
| 01:26:17 |
|
YES. |
| 01:26:20 |
|
THE ONLY CHALLENGES THAT WERE LITIGATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT -- AND THEY WERE LARGELY RELATED TO DISCLOSURE... |
| 01:27:16 |
|
THANK YOU, MR. WAXMAN. MR. OLSON, FIVE MINUTES. |
| 01:27:20 |
|
THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. THE WORDS I WOULD LEAVE WITH THIS COURT ARE THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S.... |
| 01:27:52 |
|
THAT'S NOT THE -- THE STATUTE WE'RE INVOLVED IN IN THIS CASE DOES NOT COVER THOSE. |
| 01:27:59 |
|
UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN, QUOTE, EXPRESSED ABVOCACY. THE GOVERNMENT SAYS NOW, THAT THE FEC IS NOW... |
| 01:28:34 |
|
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROSECUTE ONLY THOSE THAT DO NOT -- WHO DO NOT RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON INDIVIDUAL... |
| 01:28:42 |
|
WELL, THAT'S YOUR QUESTION FROM BEFORE, JUSTICE STEPHENS, AND, A, THIS CORPORATION ACCEPTED A SMALL... |
| 01:28:57 |
|
BUT IT WOULD SOLVE IT FOREFOR THE ADVERTISING. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THE HILLARY DOCUMENT... |
| 01:29:11 |
|
THE OVERBREADTH OF THIS STATUTE SOLVES THE PROBABLY SAYING CORPORATIONS STILL CAN'T SPEAK AND IF YOU... |
| 01:29:39 |
|
DOES THIS MEAN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE NRA'S SUBMISSION? |
| 01:29:43 |
|
I SUBMIT IT DOESN'T THE PROBLEM. IT LEADS EXACTLY -- |
| 01:29:48 |
|
IF IT SOLVED THE PROBLEM AS IT DID FOR ADVERTISING WOULD BY THE AN APPROPRIATE SOLUTION? |
| 01:29:53 |
|
I CAN'T SAY IT SOLVED THE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF PROHIBITING ALL CORPORATE... |
| 01:30:17 |
|
BUT IT'S A NIGHTMARE CONGRESS ENDORSED IN THE SNOW V JEFFERSON -- |
| 01:30:22 |
|
BUT THE WELLSTONE AMENDMENT REPEALED -- |
| 01:30:23 |
|
WE'VE HELD THAT THIS LITERALLY CAN NO BE APPLIED. WE UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT. |
| 01:30:29 |
|
I THINK WHAT MY RESPONSE IS THAT THAT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF INHIBITING OF ONE'S -- |
| 01:30:36 |
|
YOU DO NOT ENDORSE THE NRA's POSITION? |
| 01:30:39 |
|
WE DON'T. AND IT WOULDN'T EXEMPT MY CLIENTS. THE THIRD WAY IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S CHANGED ITS ... |
| 01:31:05 |
|
JUSTICE MARSHALL SAID HE WAS NOT TRYING TO EQUALIZE ALL VOICES IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. HERE'S A... |
| 01:31:19 |
|
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, JUSTICE GINSBURG, THE WORDS THAT JUMP OUT AT ME ARE THE WORDS FROM PAGE 665... |
| 01:32:09 |
|
I JUST READ THAT SENTENCE AS MEANING THE CORPORATION IS AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE... |
| 01:32:24 |
|
IT STRIKES ME THAT IT IS. IT FOLLOWS THE WORDS THAT SAY, CORPORATIONS ARE GIVEN UNIQUE ADVANTAGES... |
| 01:32:40 |
|
BRIEFLY. |
| 01:32:42 |
|
MY POINT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HERE HAS AN OVERBROAD STATUTE THAT COVERS EVERY CORPORATION, IRRESPECTIVE... |
| 01:33:13 |
|
THANK YOU COUNCIL. |
NOTE: The transcript for this program was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
