Yog
Jan 22nd, 2010, 04:24:53 PM
As a law graduate, rarely have I been more astonished by a judicial ruling than the one United States Supreme Court just recently made. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) there was a 5-4 vote to essentially ban regulation of campaign financing. This means corporations can now freely funnel billions of dollars directly to candidates campaigns, and there is nothing the house, senate or the president can do about it. The repercussions of this ruling is basically, whoever gets the most corporate support has a huge advantage in elections. While this has also been true until now, there were at least some rules to limit the corruption of the political system.
A quick summary from somethingawful.com (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3257289&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1):
-5-4 decision, Kennedy writing for the court; Stevens in dissent along with the other three liberal judges
-Thomas filed a separate dissent; Justice Thomas' dissent is limited to the part of the decision that upholds the disclosure requirements for Citizens United.
-The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections.
-The decision presumably applies equally to state and local elections, given that the Court recognizes a First Amendment right.
-And the ruling almost certainly applies to both corporate and union treasury funds.
So, in effect, restrictions on corporate donations to candidates have been ruled unconstitutional as restrictions on free speech. What this means is that a given corporation can now fully sponsor a candidate, if they wish, rather than having to do so through a PAC with all of the requirements going along with that. Thomas' only problem with this is that they aren't allowed to do so secretly. As far as I can tell, this basically shreds American campaign finance law and allows for politicians to be even more bought and paid for - correct me if I'm wrong.
The White House comments (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-todays-supreme-court-decision-0):
Statement from the President on Today's Supreme Court Decision
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
Unfortunately, I don't see what he could possibly do about this, but we'll see I guess.
From Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6)'s article:
The ruling, which overturned two precedents, underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush's two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority that struck down not only a provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act limiting corporate-funded political ads immediately before federal elections, but also federal laws dating to 1947, and state laws that were older still. Those earlier laws restricted corporations from directly funding political activity from their general treasuries.
Federal law aimed to rein in independent campaign spending by corporations and unions—advertisements these groups buy to advocate for or against a candidate. They had to channel campaign spending through a special fund, or political action committee (Yog: also known as 'PAC money'), which can accept donations from employees, shareholders and other affiliates. The federal rules applied equally to corporations and unions, although some state laws may treat them differently.
Critics contended that corporations and unions continued to spend general funds on electioneering through ads masquerading as commentary on public issues that implicitly urged a particular candidate's election or defeat. McCain-Feingold aimed to plug that purported loophole by restricting those ads in the weeks before a federal election.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 57-page opinion, said the effort to divide corporate political spending into legal and illegal forms chilled political speech.
"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," he wrote.
Justice Kennedy wrote that, taken to its extreme, the restriction on corporate spending could silence media organizations or even allow banning such political-themed movies as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
He rejected the view that government had an interest in preventing corporations or unions from "distorting" political debate by funding ads. To the contrary, "corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors of fallacies in speech of all sorts," he wrote.
The court did reach broad agreement on one point, finding that the McCain-Feingold provision requiring political messages to disclose their funder was constitutional. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from that holding. He cited reports that backers of a 2008 California measure abolishing same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, were harassed by their opponents.
The decision also left standing the federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, enacted in 1907. Justice Kennedy cited earlier rulings justifying that ban as a measure to prevent corruption.
In contrast, he wrote, "limits on independent expenditures…have a chilling effect extending well beyond the government's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption," he wrote.
The decision voids a key provision of the signature legislative achievement of Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who worked with Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to draft the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that informally carries their names. Sen. McCain said he was "disappointed" but noted that other parts of the bill remained intact.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens—part of the majority in the two previous opinions that were overruled—called the majority opinion "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have…fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt." To underscore his distress, Justice Stevens took the unusual step of reading much of his 90-page dissent from the bench.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent, which accused the majority of seizing on a minor case dealing with the application of McCain-Feingold to upend a long history of statutes and judicial opinions.
The majority's rationale "comes down to nothing more than its disagreement" with precedent, Justice Stevens wrote, and its opinion "is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents" from those cases.
Also, Slate's opinion piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2242208) is well worth a read, and also some thoughtful updates at the legal blog scotusblog.com (http://www.scotusblog.com/).
Personally, very disappointing by this decision, which may change the very foundation of democracy and future elections. Not only do the majority seem to define a legal person (read corporation) with the same civil liberties as a person, but they also seem to confuse campaign donations with freedom of speech. Corporations should not have freedom of speech the same way an individual does, and the First Amendment is not without exceptions for situations that may be detrimental to society. That is why Marlboro is not allowed to write "Nicotine is good for your health" on cigarette boxes, and you can't shout "This is a robbery!" in a bank. On the same note, Exxon Mobile should no be allowed to buy seats in the senate so they can pollute more, for example. I wonder if they considered the various ways this could suppress freedom of speech now that you can tilt airtime on TV during political campaign toward whoever got the support of major corporations.
:|
A quick summary from somethingawful.com (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3257289&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1):
-5-4 decision, Kennedy writing for the court; Stevens in dissent along with the other three liberal judges
-Thomas filed a separate dissent; Justice Thomas' dissent is limited to the part of the decision that upholds the disclosure requirements for Citizens United.
-The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections.
-The decision presumably applies equally to state and local elections, given that the Court recognizes a First Amendment right.
-And the ruling almost certainly applies to both corporate and union treasury funds.
So, in effect, restrictions on corporate donations to candidates have been ruled unconstitutional as restrictions on free speech. What this means is that a given corporation can now fully sponsor a candidate, if they wish, rather than having to do so through a PAC with all of the requirements going along with that. Thomas' only problem with this is that they aren't allowed to do so secretly. As far as I can tell, this basically shreds American campaign finance law and allows for politicians to be even more bought and paid for - correct me if I'm wrong.
The White House comments (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-todays-supreme-court-decision-0):
Statement from the President on Today's Supreme Court Decision
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
Unfortunately, I don't see what he could possibly do about this, but we'll see I guess.
From Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6)'s article:
The ruling, which overturned two precedents, underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush's two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority that struck down not only a provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act limiting corporate-funded political ads immediately before federal elections, but also federal laws dating to 1947, and state laws that were older still. Those earlier laws restricted corporations from directly funding political activity from their general treasuries.
Federal law aimed to rein in independent campaign spending by corporations and unions—advertisements these groups buy to advocate for or against a candidate. They had to channel campaign spending through a special fund, or political action committee (Yog: also known as 'PAC money'), which can accept donations from employees, shareholders and other affiliates. The federal rules applied equally to corporations and unions, although some state laws may treat them differently.
Critics contended that corporations and unions continued to spend general funds on electioneering through ads masquerading as commentary on public issues that implicitly urged a particular candidate's election or defeat. McCain-Feingold aimed to plug that purported loophole by restricting those ads in the weeks before a federal election.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 57-page opinion, said the effort to divide corporate political spending into legal and illegal forms chilled political speech.
"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," he wrote.
Justice Kennedy wrote that, taken to its extreme, the restriction on corporate spending could silence media organizations or even allow banning such political-themed movies as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
He rejected the view that government had an interest in preventing corporations or unions from "distorting" political debate by funding ads. To the contrary, "corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors of fallacies in speech of all sorts," he wrote.
The court did reach broad agreement on one point, finding that the McCain-Feingold provision requiring political messages to disclose their funder was constitutional. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from that holding. He cited reports that backers of a 2008 California measure abolishing same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, were harassed by their opponents.
The decision also left standing the federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, enacted in 1907. Justice Kennedy cited earlier rulings justifying that ban as a measure to prevent corruption.
In contrast, he wrote, "limits on independent expenditures…have a chilling effect extending well beyond the government's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption," he wrote.
The decision voids a key provision of the signature legislative achievement of Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who worked with Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to draft the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that informally carries their names. Sen. McCain said he was "disappointed" but noted that other parts of the bill remained intact.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens—part of the majority in the two previous opinions that were overruled—called the majority opinion "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have…fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt." To underscore his distress, Justice Stevens took the unusual step of reading much of his 90-page dissent from the bench.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent, which accused the majority of seizing on a minor case dealing with the application of McCain-Feingold to upend a long history of statutes and judicial opinions.
The majority's rationale "comes down to nothing more than its disagreement" with precedent, Justice Stevens wrote, and its opinion "is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents" from those cases.
Also, Slate's opinion piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2242208) is well worth a read, and also some thoughtful updates at the legal blog scotusblog.com (http://www.scotusblog.com/).
Personally, very disappointing by this decision, which may change the very foundation of democracy and future elections. Not only do the majority seem to define a legal person (read corporation) with the same civil liberties as a person, but they also seem to confuse campaign donations with freedom of speech. Corporations should not have freedom of speech the same way an individual does, and the First Amendment is not without exceptions for situations that may be detrimental to society. That is why Marlboro is not allowed to write "Nicotine is good for your health" on cigarette boxes, and you can't shout "This is a robbery!" in a bank. On the same note, Exxon Mobile should no be allowed to buy seats in the senate so they can pollute more, for example. I wonder if they considered the various ways this could suppress freedom of speech now that you can tilt airtime on TV during political campaign toward whoever got the support of major corporations.
:|