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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[ejames01]

Thats wonderful!

That already happened some time ago, ejanes

[Eastside]

Wouldn't it be great if these corporations took the many millions they will be using in campaigns and invested it in urban America.
They could
- Prevent evictions for those about to lose their homes due to lack of work until they find a job and can pay
- Provide free medical clinics for the unemployed or uninsurable
- Feed those struggling everyday looking for food
- Help the mentally ill get the help and medications they need
- Provide warm shelters to the homeless
- address basic educational needs in order to function in today's world

These are just a few things that would make a difference.

[East Detroit]

Corporations are replacing humans.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ejames01
You must really believe that you will be rich and powerful one day!


Quote: "That already happened some time ago, ejanes"

Another Internet millionaire. It's chocked full of them and supermodels.. ha

[biggus]

I think it is an appropriate time to dust this chestnut off...

[Pam]

Rep. Alan Grayson says "fight back":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4lwGbTKFAI

[mjs]

"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).

The Constitution doesn't need to be amended to protect real people rather than ficticious entities. When it was written, the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the States and U.S. citizens from an unlimited federal government. Wickard v. Filburn turned the idea of a limited Federal government on its head and N. Dakota v Dole put the nail in the coffin of State's rights.

Now the Justices put out this doozy ignoring the historic interpretation that the Consitution was intended for American citizens rather than their Corporate overlords. The idea that they think Goldman Sachs has the same rights as me an you is what scares the hell out of me.

[ejames01]

They already have more rights than us.

The Constitution doesn't need to be amended to protect real people rather than ficticious entities. When it was written, the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the States and U.S. citizens from an unlimited federal government. Wickard v. Filburn turned the idea of a limited Federal government on its head and N. Dakota v Dole put the nail in the coffin of State's rights.

Now the Justices put out this doozy ignoring the historic interpretation that the Consitution was intended for American citizens rather than their Corporate overlords. The idea that they think Goldman Sachs has the same rights as me an you is what scares the hell out of me.

[lilpup]

They already have more rights than us.

So how many corporations will be shooting themselves in the foot when they rub consumers the wrong way with their campaign choices? This could be a double-edged sword for them.

[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.....