The case was originally argued to determine whether an anti-Hillary Clinton feature film — produced by conservative group Citizens United — constituted political advertising. But the grounds of the case were eventually expanded to a number of campaign finance precedents. Said Justice John Paul Stevens in his sharp minority opinion, “Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”

Most telling to us, Cleta Mitchell, a conservative election lawyer, said the justices had “ripped the duct tape off the mouths of the American people, to allow them to exercise their First Amendment rights to support and oppose candidates, to criticize elected officials and candidates at any time, without the need to ask the government.”

But last time we checked, corporations are not people, and unlimited money is not free speech. Perhaps she meant that corporations are just organizations of people? But the Constitution was not designed to entitle corporations to First Amendment protections. (And though Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation, they received direct corporate funding for the movie they produced.)

» Share on Facebook

While it’s true that owners of famous marks can take on businesses that are using marks that dilute their brand–even in unrelated industries–Kraft has taken the low road by fallaciously attacking an individual. Gerard Haas, a lawyer for Budimir, said, “We are sorry to see that the law of brands triumphs over the right–and the first name–of people.”

Brand dilution is defined in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act as “the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish its goods or services.” Was Milka Budimir forced to surrender her site because there was a likelihood that Kraft’s “Milka” would be diluted by the brand power of the seamstress’ wares? Such hardly applies in this case. (And I thought Kraft would never top Road Kill Gummi Candy…)

» Share on Facebook