This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Thursday, January 28, 2010.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Reaction to the Citizens United Decision Affirming Freedom of Speech speech regardless of the organization of that

speech has drawn just a little bit of fire. From comparisons to the dread Scott

decision, the president lambasting the court for supposedly opening elections to corrupting influences.

Allison Hayward is a law professor at George Mason University and former counsel to the Federal

Election Commissioner, we spoke yesterday.

I read a lot of comments on the web, especially after the Citizens United case.

I watched Keith Oberman say on television that Citizens United was a worse decision than

Dread Scott.

And the reaction was pretty surprising to me.

I think some on the left who were a little more thoughtful said, look,

well, you know, they grit their teeth and say, well, I don't like this outcome, but I

understand that that is actually what the First Amendment says. What was surprising

to you and what do people tend to get wrong

when they talk about this case on the left and right? Well on the on the right

let's start with that I think people get wrong that it is a case

that has obvious partisan consequences and those consequences are obviously good for

conservatives and bad for liberals. I don't think anyone knows right now what the partisan

consequences from Citizens United will be. That's certainly not what the partisan consequences from Citizens United will be.

That's certainly not what the court was going after.

The court was trying to make First Amendment doctrine coherent.

...