Court ruling ignored protocol

The "conservative" majority of the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a federal election statute limiting the extent to which corporations and unions can spend money to influence elections. It did so despite the fact that no party in the case asked for this extraordinary relief, and therefore neither party offered the extensive evidence at trial that until now was thought necessary to decide the question of whether a statute should be held unconstitutional - not just in the way it was applied in the case at hand, but in every possible application.

These five justices ignored the traditional restraints of judicial conservatism because, well, because they really, really wanted to reach the result they reached.

In order to get to where they wanted to get, the majority decided that corporations are indistinguishable from individuals, which of course they are not. Seen one in church lately? In a hospital? Attending school? Voting on election day? Holding elective office? Starving? Being shot? Worrying about fairness? Feeling guilty? Get real.

Actually, by law, a corporation cannot be guided by the common good of the citizens of any political unit, be it the United States of America or the County of Kane. Just the opposite: it is the best interests of the corporation's shareholders (and in the real world, its top executives) whose interests trump.

Will corporate and union electioneering expenditures increase because of this decision? Logic seems to say yes, with the only open issue being how much. My guess is that this decision may someday result in a Supreme Court case in which the question will be whether brainwashing is protected speech under the First Amendment (re-read "1984.")

Alfred Y. Kirkland Jr.

Elgin