Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

[ejames01]

Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
January 21, 2010 12:03 p.m. EST

Washington [[CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, a major turnaround that threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.
A 5-4 conservative majority crafted a narrow overhaul of federal campaign spending Thursday that could have an immediate effect on this year's congressional midterm elections.
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
The opinion radically alters the election calculus, offering greater spending flexibility for a broader range of for-profit and nonprofit groups seeking a voice in the crowded national political debate.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "In a democratic society, the long-standing consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden applications of judge-made rules."
He added, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
The case was the first one heard on the bench for newest Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and she voted in dissent with her three more liberal colleagues.


The issue hinged on whether corporations' ability to pour money into election campaigns could be strictly regulated, or whether corporations have free-speech rights to spend their cash to influence elections, just as individual donors do.
In this ruling, the justices also nullified earlier rulings upholding the core of a 6-year-old federal law aimed at curbing corporate campaign spending. Under current law, there are severe restrictions on campaign ads used by corporations for federal elections. They generally must be issue-focused -- talking about abortion or taxes, for instance -- and not expressly supporting or opposing a candidate. Those limits have now been generally removed.
The specific case grew out of a documentary on Hillary Clinton. Produced last year by the conservative Citizens United, "Hillary: The Movie" was a scorching attack on the then-presidential candidate. The filmmakers wanted to promote it during the heat of the 2008 primary season, but a federal court blocked any ads, as well as airings on cable television's video on demand.
On that specific question, the justices ruled against Citizens United, saying federal restrictions on broadcast ads are appropriate.
"Citizens United's narrower arguments are not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute," Kennedy wrote.
The Washington-based nonprofit corporation and advocacy organization balked at campaign finance rules that would have required disclosure of its financial backers, and restrictions on when the film could air. It was financed with a mix of corporate and individual donations.
Navigating the complex, ever-evolving landscape of election money rules has spurred a cottage industry of financial, political and legal armies, ready to do battle over the money and the message. The crux of this dispute, like others before it, is just how far the government may go to regulate campaign spending and campaign ads.
In his opinion, Kennedy acknowledged that, but said Americans should be trusted to decide competing election issues.
"The appearance of influence or access," he wrote, "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
"Our nation's speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights," Kennedy said. "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach."


But Stevens, who read part of his harsh dissent from the bench, said, "The court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding."
Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts were key to the ruling, agreeing with their more conservative colleagues. Alito replaced moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who upheld past corporate restrictions in 2003, when the high court last confronted the issue.
Section 203 of the comprehensive Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, widely known as the McCain-Feingold law, bans the broadcast of "electioneering communication" by corporations, trade groups, unions and some issue advocacy groups, if the material would air close to election dates and identify candidates by name or image.
The law also requires an on-screen notice of the groups financing such ads, as well as public disclosure of all who donated to the sponsoring organizations.
The landmark McCain-Feingold law took effect the day after the November 2002 elections.
Among its many provisions are a ban on "soft money," the unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties; a ban, in the 60 days before an election, on advocacy ads, those criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an issue; contribution limits; and donor disclosure requirements.
Much of McCain-Feingold remains unaffected by the high court's latest ruling, including the current ban on large, unregulated donations to political parties and the candidates themselves by corporations. The case also does not affect political action committees, separate groups created by corporations, unions and others that can contribute directly to federal candidates.
PAC money has a $5,000-per-candidate limit, and must be funded through voluntary contributions from employees, members or individuals, not by direct corporate or union treasuries.
The ruling could have far-reaching effects beyond the federal arena. Twenty-two states have similar bans on corporate spending in state and local elections. Restrictions on money in gubernatorial, legislative and even judicial races could soon be a thing of the past.
"Campaign 2010 was already bulked up with the potential of campaign ad spending," said Evan Tracey, president of Campaign Media Analysis Group and CNN's consultant on political television advertising. "Now it's on steroids."


Excerpts of the movie and the ads can be viewed online at www.hillarythemovie.com.
The case is Citizens United v. FEC [[08-205).


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/...ex.html?hpt=T2

[ejames01]

It's funny how this story is buried on every news site.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "It's funny how this story is buried on every news site."

Oh it's no biggie, it just means, even less will be happening that would benefit any of us. The media, just figures it's best you don't know about anything bad. They only report good news. Ya know the old saying "Good news sells".

[oldredfordette]

Top story on NPR out of New York City. One step closer to fascism.

[jiminnm]

Top story on NPR out of New York City. One step closer to fascism.

Oh, I wasn't aware that freedom of speech led to fascism.

The government muffed the defense of the law. The court was prepared to issue a very narrow ruling last year, but when asked whether the law would allow the government to ban books and/or movies, the solicitor general answered "yes, under certain circumstances." The court suspended the hearings shortly thereafter and asked for new briefs. That led to this decision.

[ejames01]

If the government is controlled by corporations and the super rich, then we will be living in fascism.

Oh, I wasn't aware that freedom of speech led to fascism.

The government muffed the defense of the law. The court was prepared to issue a very narrow ruling last year, but when asked whether the law would allow the government to ban books and/or movies, the solicitor general answered "yes, under certain circumstances." The court suspended the hearings shortly thereafter and asked for new briefs. That led to this decision.

[bailey]

If the government is controlled by corporations and the super rich, then we will be living in fascism.

as a point of clarification... i think what you are describing is a "plutocracy" which isn't necessarily fascist, and is pretty much what we have already.

I wonder though, if we'll hear from the Cbats [[he's oddly missing....has he been banned?) of the world decrying this extrodinary bit of judicial activism.

The decision is a stunning display of judicial activism from a chief justice who promised to engage in anything but. Remember all his promises to respect precedent? Apparently he doesn't. As E.J. Dionne writes: "Remember Roberts saying judges were like umpires calling the balls and strikes? In this case, he and his colleagues canceled the game altogether and decided on their own what the final score would be." Roberts expanded the scope of the initial case before him, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to take on a century's worth of campaign-finance regulation. Dahlia Lithwick describes it perfectly: "The court had to reach out far beyond any place it needed to go....This started off as a case about a single movie. It morphed into John Roberts's Golden Globe night."

[rb336]

Oh, I wasn't aware that freedom of speech led to fascism.

when speech is dominated by a select group of wealthy individuals and corporations to the extent that other voices are drowned out, it is no longer free. that is exactly what the supremes' decision has done

[mauser]

Oh, I wasn't aware that freedom of speech led to fascism.

Corporations are not people. Period.

They have no speech rights based on the fallacy of "corporate personhood".. That argument is idiotic.

Giving such powerful rights to corporations, including multi and trans-national corporations, is in fact fascism.

[Det_ard]

I don't look forward to the commercials cluttering up the airwaves this fall, but more political speech is better than less. I'm not looking forward to the hyperventilating over our slide toward "fascism" either, but that form of political speech is good too.

[Det_ard]

Did they restrain the voice of Moveon, SEIU, NARAL etc? No. Organize, speak out. If the Tea Partiers can do it so can you.

[oladub]

Did they restrain the voice of Moveon, SEIU, NARAL etc? No. Organize, speak out. If the Tea Partiers can do it so can you.

Exactly. Embrace your freedom of speech. In fact the first line of the OP includes unions in the ruling. "The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections". The Supreme Court has recognized the primacy of the First Amendment over notions. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... "

Judge Stevens wrote, "The court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding." He should have instead ruled on the basis of what the Constiution says instead of whatever his notion of common sense and history is. It was a court in California that gave corporations the status of individuals. It was a broad Congressional interpretation of the commerce clause that allowed corporations much of their size and power. He should have considered the broad consequences of McCain-Feingold regulating speech and the press. I agree that coporations have too much power but the way to deal with that is to undo legislation that provided the power instead of trying to thwart free speech.

[Whitehouse]

That's it. The USA is doomed now. The government will be owned by Bigcorp, all because five spineless SCOTUS judges. Now every major company is equal to Joe Average, but Joe can't bribe a senator like a bigcorp will. Farewell to the real idealists in the senate. Everyone will be in someone's pocket. Even more than in today's senate.

[ejames01]

You must really believe that you will be rich and powerful one day!

Bullshit:

Every 'average joe" on two legs has the EXACT SAME RIGHT to give a politician millions of $$$'s that big corporations have.

If you don't happen to HAVE millions to give politicians... tough.

[ejames01]

Thats wonderful!

That already happened some time ago, ejanes

[Gistok]

Bullshit:

Every 'average joe" on two legs has the EXACT SAME RIGHT to give a politician millions of $$$'s that big corporations have.

If you don't happen to HAVE millions to give politicians... tough.

Riderdon... the similarities between your views and Leona Helmsley's towards "the little people" is duly noted.....

[rb336]

Bullshit:

Every 'average joe" on two legs has the EXACT SAME RIGHT to give a politician millions of $$$'s that big corporations have.

If you don't happen to HAVE millions to give politicians... tough.

this has got to be the lamest comment i've seen this year

[3WC]

Lilpup is correct. A little common sense on here goes a long way.

What do you all think corporations are, anyway? It clear Rb has no concept.

Corporations are us. Countless millions of us. We own corporations through direct ownership, mutual funds, pension funds etc. And if one assumes [[probably, incorrectly in many cases) that unions have adverse interests to corporations, then the unions have the same ability to influence voters as do corporations.

If we, the owners of corporations, don't like the political and other positions they take, sell their shares. They don't like that and will be careful to avoid alienating their owners.

It's not like we're not inundated with political advertising every time we turn around. Rb and others seem to think that we, the people, are a bunch of idiots, incapable of sorting through all the political BS, and we'll be robotized by the bad old corporations. Nonsense.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

[ejames01]

Corporations are not us. The microscopic percentage of stock that a single average citizen owns in a company is meaningless. And no one is going to be manipulating their investments based on what a corporation is doing politically [[as if most people would even know what their efforts are). I would bet the the average person has no idea what companies that their mutual funds are invested in [[and who would have the time to do that anyway?).

It would take something pretty bad for investors to ignore a good ROE and divest.

Lilpup is correct. A little common sense on here goes a long way.

What do you all think corporations are, anyway? It clear Rb has no concept.

Corporations are us. Countless millions of us. We own corporations through direct ownership, mutual funds, pension funds etc. And if one assumes [[probably, incorrectly in many cases) that unions have adverse interests to corporations, then the unions have the same ability to influence voters as do corporations.

If we, the owners of corporations, don't like the political and other positions they take, sell their shares. They don't like that and will be careful to avoid alienating their owners.

It's not like we're not inundated with political advertising every time we turn around. Rb and others seem to think that we, the people, are a bunch of idiots, incapable of sorting through all the political BS, and we'll be robotized by the bad old corporations. Nonsense.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

[lilpup]

Corporations are not us. The microscopic percentage of stock that a single average citizen owns in a company is meaningless. And no one is going to be manipulating their investments based on what a corporation is doing politically [[as if most people would even know what their efforts are). I would bet the the average person has no idea what companies that their mutual funds are invested in [[and who would have the time to do that anyway?).

It would take something pretty bad for investors to ignore a good ROE and divest.

It's about consumers even more than stockholders. You think the big banks haven't noticed the 'move your money' action? Grassroots action is easier than ever with the internet - if a trend catches fire there's no stopping it until it burns out. Remember, that's a big part of how Obama got elected.

[rb336]

Lilpup is correct. A little common sense on here goes a long way.

What do you all think corporations are, anyway? It clear Rb has no concept.

Corporations are us. Countless millions of us. We own corporations through direct ownership, mutual funds, pension funds etc. And if one assumes [[probably, incorrectly in many cases) that unions have adverse interests to corporations, then the unions have the same ability to influence voters as do corporations.

Let's make one thing clear, 3WC, and that is that if one of us knows what a corporation is, it is not you, except at the most simplistic level.

Corporations were originally created as a means to provide a common good. they were licensed, usually for a set period of time and for a narrow purpose. Today they are primarily shells to provide cover for their managers to rip off the people and destroy the middle class with complete impunity. they are unlimited in their scope and the only limits on them is their liability, and that limit is in their favour

If we, the owners of corporations, don't like the political and other positions they take, sell their shares. They don't like that and will be careful to avoid alienating their owners.

if you really think that is a viable strategy when most shares are held by various agencies, when the # of shares in a multinational numbers in the millions, i've got stock in a bridge in san francisco for sale

Rb and others seem to think that we, the people, are a bunch of idiots, incapable of sorting through all the political BS, and we'll be robotized by the bad old corporations. Nonsense.

except that the people keep doing their damndest to prove us right. They accept lies from whichever party, no matter how baldfaced they are, and continue to accept those lies regardless of how thoroughly they have been proven to be lies. [[case in point death panels. case in point sadam was behind 9/11. case in point "there were no terrorist attacks on the US under Bush)That, my friend, is the definition of an idiot

[Jimaz]

Nothing good can come of this, a blatantly corrupt decision.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "when speech is dominated"

The one with the microphone wins. We can all bitch and moan on a blog or around the water cooler, it's basically meaningless. As long as some ratchet jaw with marching orders is flapping his gums through the millions of dashboard speakers, there is a never ending supply of idiots to absorb, believe and agree - and vote.

[rb336]

Quote: "when speech is dominated"

The one with the microphone wins. We can all bitch and moan on a blog or around the water cooler, it's basically meaningless. As long as some ratchet jaw with marching orders is flapping his gums through the millions of dashboard speakers, there is a never ending supply of idiots to absorb, believe and agree - and vote.

exactly how the cororatists want it

[jiminnm]

"Exactly. Embrace your freedom of speech. In fact the first line of the OP includes unions in the ruling. "The Supreme Court has given big business, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections". The Supreme Court has recognized the primacy of the First Amendment over notions. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... " "

Your point is exactly correct oladub. It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine whether the law comports with the Constitution, not what the mood of the American public might be. You've provided one solution, and another would be to amend the Consitution to limit its application to persons created by law [[not nature).