No I don't think peeps are missing the "real issue" (and asking such in a condesending way really isn't necessary in what has been quite a civil debate. Could we ALL please not travel down that road?)
Instead they may see the "real issue" as different, corporations arguing and being granted constitutional rights from what you see appear to see as the "real issue", campaign finance and the government regulating who has the constitutional right to free speech.
IMO, the real issue is that a corporation
, not a "group of individuals", brought a constitutional arguement, free speech, in front of the SCOTUS and won. Thus the case sets precedent that will
be used for corporations to try to move well beyond personhood and right into constitutional protection. This HAS to be addressed and by the SCOTUS not addressing it, they put quite a dangerous ball in play.
Stevens mentions just that as a "real issue" in this case
SCOTUS Justice Stevens wrote..
Under the majoritys view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.
The majority did not respond to that and they need to.
B/c they didn't, this case is MUCH bigger than campaign finance law and regulation.
IMO, the majority SCOTUS failed/skirted/ignored the issue of "personhood" when they failed to even probe/address if the incorporated plaintiff even had the standing/right to bring constitutional protection into their arguement.
Why? Who knows, but the unintended consequences will be huge and when this precedent is used, it will extend well beyond campaign finance.
IMO this is a decision that needs at least more defined and perhaps over turned
Sometimes the easier, less messy comes with the titantic size other consequences. This is one of those
What is your opinion when you look at what others see as the "real issue"