. It is common knowledge that the vindication of the majority led to the preservation of the “corporations and unions from using general treasury funds either to support or defeat a candidate in the 30 days before an election” (Fish) and overruled the minority.&nbsp.In fact, even President Obama took into notice the case and commented on it. However, Fish makes it clear early on in the article that it is not the case outcome that needs to be questioned but the decoding of the First Amendment, its purpose, and factors for its implications. He explores the two very important ways in which the First Amendment is perceived and subsequently implied – one siding with the majority and the other arguing against it. Interestingly, he deems them both correct in their own ways as explained further.

Both the opinions of Justice Kennedy as well as Justice Stevens are put forward with their perceptions, driving out the arresting nature of the case. Fish compares both the expressions of Justice Kennedy by quoting his word “chills” and Justice Stevens’ “corrupts”. The most striking thing about the article perhaps is the potent choice of words with which Fish adorns his opinions. These opinions are further contrasted with the marked explanations of these citations. The word “chills” refers to complete cessation of free speech from “entering the marketplace of ideas”. “Corrupts”, on the other hand, refers to the interspersing of ideas that involve the corporate sector into politics will render, resulting in the hampering of the very purpose for which free speech was advocated. Whilst Kennedy believes in the right of free speech and expression to be preserved, Stevens promotes “the free flow of information so crucial to the health of a democratic society” (Fish). It is interesting to note that Stevens provides sufficient reason for his theory to be backed up, especially by citing Theodore Roosevelt regarding the ban of law on corporate interference where politics is concerned.&nbsp.