Supreme Court Blocks Key Part of Campaign Law

[TheProfessor]

Firms and Unions May Spend Freely to Influence Elections

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

''The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

''It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions,'' said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.

The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained ''the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.''

Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.

''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,'' Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.

But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.

The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

[coyotes_geek]

Campaign finance? I thought that quit being important once democrats started raising more money than republicans.

[Winehole23]

This decision should help to level the playing field.

[SouthernFried]

Very good decision.

Private people, which include private organizations, have the right to spend their own money as they see fit. Whether for or against a political candidate is part of that right. Limiting that right has always been unconstitutional, imho.

Corrupting influence?

There is no more corrupting influence in govt politics than what we have just seen. Govt actually buying votes of select congress persons to get bills passed. Supporting, or not supporting a candidate with private funds comes nowhere close to what has just happened in Congress. The BILLIONS spent on just a select few to buy a single vote, on a single bill, from public monies...was, and is a disgrace.

"but..but...BUSH did it too."

Then support candidates that wont justify their own corruption by trying to point to others.

If Walmart wants to support a candidate, and run ads with their own money...more power to them. They are a private company and people. Instead of limiting what people can spend, it should be wide open...spend as much or as little as you like, it's your money. The candidates who appeal the most to the most people, will get the most money...and that is how it should be.

It's still somewhat a free country...now.

"but..but..those evil corporations will support candidates who support them!!"

...and that's how it should be.

"but we hate corporations!!"

Stupidity probably won't get much support or money...and that's how it should be also.

[Winehole23]

The merger of politics and the what A. Lincoln called "the money interest" continues apace.

[DarkReign]

Horrible ruling. Coporations should have new limitations on influence, not expanded.

As for the whole "whoever appeals to the most people get the most money" idea from SouthernFried, I say you are wrong in every sense.

Politicians are already elected by corporatists, but at least they lie to the people by showing up in public talking about their concerns.

With this ruling, its thinkable that a politician need only show for the debates and kiss a baby. The people's money wont mean shit to them because they wont need it. Corporations will just cut blank checks en masse to whomever suits their prerogative.

That same politician will have ads after and during every local news program, every local sporting team's event, his/her face will be on every bus, billboard and advertisement.

He/she will be elected because dumbshit voter will say "hey, I recognize that name" and they will win handily without ever having to campaign "on the ground". Its pathetic.

[boutons_deux]

Corporations are not people or citizens, have no morals or ethical considerations that trump profits, and have $Bs to influence and corrupt campaigns, feeding lies and misinformation to citizens.

The corps will crowd out from the media candidates who are less well financed.

Truly, The Business of America Is Business

(and Business fucks over citizens and the environment)

This ruling will disenfranchise citizens, since the it will be the corps who win the campaigns with their dollars.

If anybody thinks politics and democracy are already corrupted by money, you ain't seen nothing, yet.

[Winehole23]

Citizens United round-up: morning edition
Coverage of the decision from the media

Erin Miller | Thursday, January 21st, 2010 11:23 am | Tags: Citizens United, round-up This morning’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is breaking headlines. Below, we cull stories from some of the major news outlets and blogs. We will add more round-up coverage of the decision throughout the day, initially in this post and then in an afternoon edition. Please check back for updates–and send any suggestions for new links to scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com.
Also, the Washington Post online already has a great page aggregating reactions to the decision.
News

• AP (via the Washington Post): Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
• Bloomberg: Corporate Campaign Spending Backed By U.S. High Court
• Reuters: Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
• Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns
• ABC News: Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Limits on Corporations, Unions
• ABA Journal: 5-4 Citizens United Ruling “a Revolution in Campaign Finance Law”
• L.A. Times: Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections
• New York Times: Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits
• Washington Post: Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns

Blogs and Commentary

• Steve Hoersting at NRO’s Bench Memos: Freedom in Citizens United
• Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy: Will Citizens United ruling impact crime and justice campaign advertising?
• Kenneth Vogel at Politico: Court decision opens floodgates for corporate political spending
• Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Campaign-Finance Provision
• Former Senator Bob Kerrey on Huffington Post: The Senator from Exxon-Mobil? As Supreme Court Throws Open the Floodgates to Unlimited Corporate Money in Campaigns, the Time for Real Reform is Now!
• Ashby Jones at WSJ Law Blog: Free Speech v. Democracy: Rounding Up The Citizens United Reactions
• E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post, briefly: Corporate takeover: The Supreme Court’s reckless conservative activism
• The Oval blog at USAToday: Supreme Court: Corporations can spend what they want in political races
• Ilya Shapiro at Cato@Liberty: Supreme Court Ruling on Hillary Movie Heralds Freer Speech for All of Us
• Heather Gerken at Balkinization: An initial take on Citizens United

http://www.scotusblog.com/

[Winehole23]

The opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[SouthernFried]

Corporations are really evil. They ain't people...they're really demons in disguise as people.

...and they'll run ads! Lotsa ads!!

Obama didn't need to run one ad when he gave Ben Nelson Billions for his vote. Oh yeah, Much, much better than ads.

Business couldn't run an ad showing what happened? Well, it's for sure they can now.

More freedom is always better than less.

...and so it goes.

[Winehole23]

Corporations are really evil. They ain't people...they're really demons in disguise as people.

This needn't be stipulated to see a danger. "Special interests" have already captured much of the political process and most of the politicians. Not because they are evil, just because they are reasonable-minded, forward-thinking and self-interested.

This decision just opens the floodgates to their "influence".

What a surprise. Soi disant conservative SouthernFried cheers on judicial activism when it benefits special interests and unions.

ROFL!

[spursncowboys]

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''

I would rather they focus on why it is not constitutional in their dissent.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

With the media pushing issues, candidates and particular parties like they are, doing this will be good and make it a less unfair.
McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional and it's good that scotus is acknowledging it.

[SouthernFried]

What a surprise. Soi disant conservative SouthernFried cheers on judicial activism when it benefits special interests and unions.

The judicial "activism" was when the COURTS decided people can't spend their money or run an ad when the courts say they can't. This OVERTURNS that judicial activism.

Not because they are evil, just because they are reasonable-minded, forward-thinking and self-interested.

This decision just opens the floodgates to their "influence".

And I gather you think this is bad? I think that is what this country is all about...being able to influence the people you elect. The alternative is...you don't have any influence on the people you elect.

I want them to hear me. Constantly. I don't fear any other people wanting the same thing...and that includes "corporations." Who, regardless of the morons who think otherwise...are people.

[spursncowboys]

If people cannot influence people with money then what is there? Then we it becomes class warfare of who you know and what your stature is in the party. I much rather someone have to go out and earn money than go around and win the approval of the heads of the groups.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The judicial "activism" was when the COURTS decided people can't spend their money or run an ad when the courts say they can't. This OVERTURNS that judicial activism.



And I gather you think this is bad? I think that is what this country is all about...being able to influence the people you elect. The alternative is...you don't have any influence on the people you elect.

I want them to hear me. Constantly. I don't fear any other people wanting the same thing...and that includes "corporations." Who, regardless of the morons who think otherwise...are people.

what if the ad is shown the night before an election and it is a blatant falsehood? would you be ok with that?

[Winehole23]

The notion that corporations are individuals possessed of Constitutional standing equipollent to US citizens is itself a piece of judicial hanky-panky ripe for the overturning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_C...cific_Railroad

[ElNono]

I think this ruling is good. The 1st amendment should always apply equally, IMHO, and this is one of those cases. I'll probably despise seeing slimy and crappy political ads on every channel near election time, but I can always grab the remote and turn the TV off...

[SouthernFried]

Corporations cannot exist without people.

Try to submit a corporate charter without one.

Those people being able to run ads, and spend money as they see fit...is what Freedom and Liberty is all about.

That goes for Unions, Environmental nutjobs...and everyone else. You want to spend money on a campaign...be my guest.

More Freedom is always better than less Freedom.

[SouthernFried]

what if the ad is shown the night before an election and it is a blatant falsehood? would you be ok with that?

You lie, you face consequences.

The silly notion that we must stop all ads because someone might lie in one, on the night of an election...is moronic.

Freedom is not something we should deny because someone might lie to you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You lie, you face consequences.

The silly notion that we must stop all ads because someone might lie in one, on the night of an election...is moronic.

Freedom is not something we should deny because someone might lie to you.

So you are ok with liberal organizations lying about republican candidates with blatantly false ads on the night before the election. The republican loses because of it. What consequences will that group face? I'd like to be wrong here so educate me.

[ElNono]

You lie, you face consequences.

The problem is that corporations per se are a concoction created to avoid personally facing the consequences. Most of the companies that willrun these ads will be created for that specific purpose and intentionally to limit/deny any liability.

I still don't think trumping First Amendment rights is the solution to that, but I see where that is a problem.

[Winehole23]

Corporations aren't US citizens. Why should fictive and notionally eternal "individuals" have the same constitutional standing as us?

[Winehole23]

Are corporations mentioned in the Constitution? Why all the question begging about their having rights under the US Consituttion?

[DarkReign]

Corporations aren't US citizens. Why should fictive and notionally eternal "individuals" have the same constitutional standing as us?

Good question.

Corporations having personhood in the eyes of the law is first and foremost a complete tragedy.

Having said that, should business be subject to the protections of personhood based on this premise?

I say no. Seems I am in the minority.

[ElNono]

Are corporations mentioned in the Constitution? Why all the question begging about their having rights under the US Consituttion?

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.

[Winehole23]

Corporations are creatures of the states, not the US Constitution, and in principle are limitable at will by the soveriegn. That was the 19th century view, at least.

[Winehole23]

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.

That's a bit strained IMO, but it makes sense semantically. I tend to doubt this language was crafted with chartered corporations in mind, but retroactively it makes sense to point to this.

[ElNono]

I don't have a problem with having a regulatory framework, I persoanlly don't think outright prohibition is the answer. For example, I'm fairly sure that nobody would complain about a corporation ad extolling a candidate's good points. It's normally the negative stuff that's the problem.

[SouthernFried]

So you are ok with liberal organizations lying about republican candidates with blatantly false ads on the night before the election. The republican loses because of it. What consequences will that group face? I'd like to be wrong here so educate me.

lol. I'm not ok with anyone lying. But, I'm not going to limit people's freedom of speech because someone might lie to me.

Are you?

Or, are you thinking that freedom of speech is ok, but elections are too imporant to totally allow that freedom during one?

[ElNono]

That's a bit strained IMO, but it makes sense semantically. I tend to doubt this language was crafted with chartered corporations in mind, but retroactively it makes sense to point to this.

I think that definition gives them enough wiggle room to overturn an outright ban. I'm not sure they could use it to prevent stricter regulation though.