View Full Version : Supreme Court Ruling
fm Voice of America, 22 JAN 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision on campaign finance laws Thursday that opens the way for corporations and labor unions to have an even greater impact on the U.S. elections process.
A sharply divided Supreme Court, by a vote of five to four, struck down campaign finance laws going back decades that had imposed limits on political contributions from corporations. The ruling is also expected to apply to labor unions and activist groups.
The high court ruling could open the money floodgates for corporations and unions, making it easier for them to run their own campaign ads on behalf of or against political candidates. In the 2008 election cycle alone, nearly six billion dollars was spent on all federal campaigns for president and Congress.
The high court's five-member conservative majority equated limits on campaign contributions from corporations with constitutionally unacceptable limits on free speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy said that limits on political speech were unjustified, and the majority struck down laws that had placed limits on the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on election campaigns.
Conservative and libertarian groups welcomed the Supreme Court decision, including Steve Simpson with the Institute for Justice. He spoke to reporters in front of the Supreme Court.
"The Supreme Court recognized today that the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow individuals and Americans to speak out as loudly and as robustly as they please," he said. "That applies whether an individual chooses to speak out alone or whether he chooses to associate with others and speak out as a group."
The court's liberal four-member minority opposed the change. In his written dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.
A written statement from President Obama at the White House said the high court's decision opens the way to a stampede of special interest money in American politics.
Among those speaking out in opposition was Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York.
"Today's ruling, decided by the slimmest of majorities, guts our system of free and fair elections," he said. "The bottom line is this. The Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America."
The high court ruling does not change a ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and labor unions that originated back in 1907.
Government watchdog groups that monitor corruption and the influence of special interests said the Supreme Court ruling opens the way for corporations and labor unions to exert even more influence on the elections process.
Bob Edgar is president of the monitoring group Common Cause:
"We need to recognize that money has influenced the debate here in Washington for too long," said Edgar. "All you have to do is look at the housing crisis, the investment crisis, the banking crisis. Even this health care debate was already tainted by how much money had flooded into the system. The elected officials in the House and Senate are going to end up serving special interests even more than they do today and not the public's interest."
The ruling will apply to this year's congressional midterm elections in November and could lead to a barrage of corporate and union sponsored television ads during the campaign that were previously restricted.
The case stemmed from a conservative group's challenge of campaign finance laws as part of an effort to promote a movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Not sure what this is gong to mean other than more obtuse commercials and less actionable information.
It was a victory for freedom of speech.
Another perspective.
USA Today, 22 JAN 2010
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/01/debate-on-money-in-politics-our-view-courts-campaign-ruling-threatens-the-public-interest.html
IMO, there's a middle ground that was missed in the SC's decision. Watch ACORN and other well funded lobby groups chime in. This election will be a malestrom for TV. Buy advertising stock!
Another perspective.
IMO, there's a middle ground that was missed in the SC's decision. Watch ACORN and other well funded lobby groups chime in. This election will be a malestrom for TV. Buy advertising stock!
Yep that freedom part is hard to take sometimes.
Kyobanim
01-22-2010, 16:40
So, now a normal American citizen not only has to compete with well funded lobby groups, now we have to compete with a company with an agenda which is another way of saying buying off an elected official.
So, who is going to speak for me? I can't afford to threaten congresscritters with tv ads saying how bad one is versis another.
Maybe I'll invest in political ad agencies and see if I can get in on some of this stupid shit.
So, who is going to speak for me? I can't afford to threaten congresscritters with tv ads saying how bad one is versis another.
Ironically, we send them to Congress as our lobbyists. They seem to have forgotten that.
Pat
So, now a normal American citizen not only has to compete with well funded lobby groups, now we have to compete with a company with an agenda which is another way of saying buying off an elected official.......
Now you are free to band together with like minded citizens and pool your resources to get your message out.
Politics is greased with money. Find the axle you like the best and slap some grease on it.
Dozer523
01-22-2010, 22:45
It was a victory for freedom of speech. Yeah! A victory for the Golden Rule.
Now you are free to band together with like minded citizens and pool your resources to get your message out.
Politics is greased with money. Find the axle you like the best and slap some grease on it. It's just a matter of zeros, so Good luck with that.
.... It's just a matter of zeros, so Good luck with that.
One million folks who believe in an issue each donate $10. That adds up to $10,000,000. That should be enough to produce a few adds and buy some air time.
Ever hear of the term "Force Multiplier"?
I'm leery of the $$$ power it now overtly gives to PACs, lobbyists, and corporations - a return of the not so good ol' days of smoke filled back rooms for deciding elections among the monied power brokers.
If only Congressman Jefferson (LA) had held out a couple of years, he would have never had to worry about being indicted for accepting a paltry hundred thousand dollars from the PACs to steer legislation in their favor. :rolleyes:
I need to go watch "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" and hope there are some Jefferson Smiths out there to help us.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
I find the views of some on this thread to be interesting.
For all who think this is a bad ruling I ask the question.
"Just who should the government allow to run political adds during a campaign?"
OK, a second question.
"Just who in the government should be allowed to make that decision?"
"Just who should the government allow to run political adds during a campaign?"
OK, a second question.
"Just who in the government should be allowed to make that decision?"
Sir, I don't live in a perfect world very often, and it's a damn good thing I ain't in charge of the goat rodeo in DC, but IMO the first question should be a limit on the amount any candidate can spend on a campaign. As for the second question IMO it should be up to congress to set that limit and adjust it about a year before an election.
I know, I know...whole bunch probably wrong with this approach.
Now, it's not so much the $$ spent to elect our next ACORN rep, but rather the $$ spent to advertise a position to put pressure on that congress to support one legislative position over another. IMO that isn't a matter of "freedom of speech", but rather "freedom from speech".
Edit: I didn't answer your first question. Sorry, sir. To answer; The "who" would IMO be up to the courts re: content of slander/liable, etc.
Kyobanim
01-23-2010, 08:34
"Just who should the government allow to run political adds during a campaign?"
I can't say, at this point, who should but I can start a list of who shouldn't.
Here's over 700 organizations to start off with. More on the way. http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index
craigepo
01-23-2010, 09:15
Here's the opinion by the Court. Note that Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas were for the majority opinion that overruled the speech restrictions.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
And so it goes...
Richard
Supreme Court’s Campaign Ruling: A Bad Day For Democracy
Bob Edgar, CSMonitor, 22 Jan 2010
Thursday was a bad day for democracy. The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission paves the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections, and the drowning out of the average citizen’s voice in our public policy debates. In other words, the court has made a bad situation worse by enhancing the ability of the deepest-pocketed special interests to influence elections and the US Congress.
In its 5-to-4 decision, the Roberts Court declares outright that corporate expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy. These are unsubstantiated claims that will change the ground rules of American democracy.
As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, “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, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”
Justice Stevens explained that corporations are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established. He lamented that the court used “a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel” when it struck down one of Congress’s most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. Stevens added that the court negated Congress’s efforts “without a shred of evidence.”
The fear factor of unlimited corporate political spending this decision creates will now fuel a rapidly escalating fundraising arms race in Congress. With big firms now free to spend jaw-dropping sums to oppose or intimidate them, elected officials will feel compelled to spend more and more of their time raising money, thereby further distracting Congress from the pressing issues of the day. In addition, this potential spending will create even greater fear of political reprisal for unpopular votes, expand conflicts of interest, and further undermine the public’s confidence in government’s ability to act in the public interest.
Congress must respond swiftly and forcefully to ensure that corporations do not take over the electoral process.
The path from here is clear: Congress must free itself from Wall Street’s grip so Main Street can finally get a fair shake. We need to change the way America pays for elections. Passing the Fair Elections Now Act would give us the best Congress money can’t buy.
The Fair Elections Now Act was introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois and Rep. John Larson (D) of Connecticut. In the House, the bipartisan bill has attracted 125 additional cosponsors. Both bills blend small donor fundraising with public funding to reduce the pressure of fundraising from big contributors.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision means more business as usual in Washington, stomping on voters’ hope for change. Congress must take on the insider Washington money culture if it wants to make the changes voters are demanding. The way to do that is by passing the Fair Elections Now Act.
NOTE: Bob Edgar is president of Common Cause, a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen’s lobbying organization promoting open, honest, and accountable government.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4741359
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-day-for-democracy
Here's the opinion by the Court. Note that Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas were for the majority opinion that overruled the speech restrictions.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Sir, the SC ruling re: 1st Amendment is understandable (I think), but the issue that is difficult for me to wrestle around is the effect massive advertisements will have on formulating the public opinion of the Congress (not necessarily the opinion of the electorate who may elect or deny a particular candidate).
(It) isn't a matter of "freedom of speech", but rather "freedom from speech".
Of course no court can imagine what application a law may have in some future scenario, but it seems that the application of the SC's interpretation will have a deleterious impact on the leglislative process (which is already encumbered) by driving the public opinion of a legislator without regard for the attidues of the constinuency. Just my opinion, sir. Can you help me understand this better? Is this a risk or not?
And may the best ad win...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
And may the best ad win...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Who needs an add when you have the MSM in your pocket.
PedOncoDoc
01-23-2010, 12:36
It's a shame we can't ban all compaign ads on television and print. Let them print their signs and buttons, and leave the campaign publicity up to debates and news coverage.
I can think of a LOT of better ways to spend $6bil on a national platform.
My $.02 :munchin
Surf n Turf
01-23-2010, 17:07
Obama, Hillary, Bush, Reagan, --- ANY administration trying to limit ANY free speech is a bad thing. The NRA could not run ads 60 days before an election, but acorn found a way “around” this pesky problem – as a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan charity.
SnT
Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.
This process came to a head last March, when the deputy solicitor general of the United States, representing the official position of the government in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, declared that the government had the constitutional authority to ban the publication of a book if Congress passed such a law.This is not an issue that is easily categorized as "conservative" or "liberal." In our case, the ACLU joined with the NRA, and the AFL-CIO joined with the Chamber of Commerce in support of Citizens United and the First Amendment.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/congress-shall-make-no-law/print/
NRA praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that removed unconstitutional restrictions on NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like NRA. While the author of this measure had singled out NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5324
The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election. Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations. "If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes. "A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." But Kagan's answer is hardly comforting. Is the government going to have a word limit that lets bureaucrats decide when something goes from being a "pamphlet" to a book? How long would that last?
Campaign finance regulations that limit donations or campaign expenditures also have another downside: they entrench incumbents. It is a lot easier for incumbents, who have had years to determine who their actual and potential donors are, to raise small amounts from a lot of donors. Take the obviously extreme example where campaign expenditures are banned. Clearly, the already well-known incumbent would be virtually assured of winning.
The very fact that a high-ranking administration official argues for banning certain books right before an election is scary and reminds us of the Chinese Government’s attempt to restrict Google, not of free debate in a free country.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/
Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves. -- bans all broadcast political advocacy advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before the election. None of this would surprise Alexander Hamilton, who argued in “The Federalist Papers” that written guarantees of things like freedom of the press would be purposely misconstrued by ambitious politicians and used as a pretext to do that which the Constitution banned: “I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.ht ml
King 'O' is correct that it muffles the voice of the people, but I don't believe that is the true reason he is upset about it. And actually nothing has changed except maybe you added another competitor to the mix of Special Interests (aka - 501c4s, 501c6s and Unions).
Corporations throwing loads of loot to promote their cause or agenda is any different than the antics ACORN, SEIU. At least now the 'Special Interest Groups' have some competition that will be allowed to play on a even playing field......and that is what King 'O' doesn't want or need.
JMO.
Dozer523
01-23-2010, 21:36
I find the views of some on this thread to be interesting.
For all who think this is a bad ruling I ask the question.
"Just who should the government allow to run political adds during a campaign?"
OK, a second question.
"Just who in the government should be allowed to make that decision?" Answer to the first question: The Candidate. As in I'm X and I approved this message"
Second question: Fed Eection Comm
Force Multiplier? That some sort of Jedi trick?:p
*********************************
I slogged through quite a bit of the opinion. They sure like the word "chilling" don't they? Strikes me odd that so many of those "in the majority" felt the need to clarify how they actually agreed. Maybe the Justices are going to develop Signing Statments. For me the key point was that the movie Hillary was preceeded by an advertisement the Concuring Justices described as prejorative.
Though not a Justice and not even a Lawyer (I have been represented by a few so . . . ) but to me the ad makes what follows "fruit of the poison tree".
As the Democratic party did especially well with new media in the last presidential campaign cycle, it remains to be seen if this ruling levels the playing field as some right of center commentators believe.
If nothing else, the ruling is a victory for Madison Avenue and for academic institutions with strong programs in communications and computer science.
Answer to the first question: The Candidate. As in I'm X and I approved this message".............
So should I remind you of your opinion when it comes closer to election time and you start to voice your opinion of the candidates?
Set aside the effects of advertising for/against a particular candidate. What will be the effect on the legislator and the ability of Congress to govern?
(from an ad agency in DC: http://www.thecyphersagency.com)
(Under "What We Do")
"We do whatever it takes to create great brands. Like a fly on the wall, we observe and listen to what fulfills your customers and clients every need and keeps them coming back for more. With this knowledge, we ask you to open your mind and set aside what YOU feel makes you great and embrace the words that will make you profitable: in the customer we trust.
At The Cypher Agency, our job is to create brands. Whether it’s a product or service, good advertising is the key to the success of your brand. To be successful, we delve into the heart of your business___but more importantly, we delve into the mind of your audience. We believe brands are created with the mind of the consumer and that the best brands are the ones that connect with an individual's needs on a personal level.
We know this because they tell us."
This is not an a-typical position for any advertising agency, and it's not necessarily bad, but it underscores IMO the mindset that will be applied to the task of influencing Congress as an individual voter. Congress does not rely souly on the opinion of the persons in their districts, but in the opinion they perceive. An effective ad campaign (one well funded) will IMO have an impact on the way Congress votes for/against the legislation in front of them. No, IMO, we don't have "too much freedom of speech", but we risk having to much information, in effect white noise.
Dozer523
01-24-2010, 08:52
So should I remind you of your opinion when it comes closer to election time and you start to voice your opinion of the candidates? Sure, go ahead. Especially if I'm spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on commercials instead of new skis or guns or motorcycles or college educations, a place at the lake.
The point is not the opinion. It is the medium of expression and who is assigned responsibility for the truth therein.
....The point is not the opinion.......
The opinion is the point. Free speach is about political speach. It applies to us all not just who the government and an appointed board says it does.
The NRA is made up of members with a similar view on gun control issues. I'm a member and support the ILA with money. Why should the NRA be banned from running adds that point out a candidates position on gun control within 30 days of an election?
We shall just have to disagree on this issue.
I'm just amazed it was 5-4
Was the White House Planning on Using McCain-Feingold to silence Fox News?
One blogger's view - and an interesting take at that.
http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-white-house-planning-to-use-mccain.html
"....The cause for worry is the precise language used by the White House to demean Fox. It has been: “not a legitimate/traditional news organization/network,” and “a wing of the Republican Party.” McCain-Feingold bans electioneering communications by corporations and unions that mention federal candidates by name 30 days prior to primaries and 60 days prior to the general election. It carves out an exemption for the “institutional press” but disallows the exemption when a broadcast station is “owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate.” ........"
craigepo
01-24-2010, 17:21
"LarryW" Entire post regarding new power of persuasion held by corporations
I think the Court addressed this concern, by holding that deeming a particular group "too powerful" was no justification for withholding the group's 1st Amendment Rights:
"Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important---vitally important---that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or banned, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community."
I have found that when reading "freedom of speech" cases, one is well-served by remembering that the Court bases many decisions on the proposition of a "marketplace of ideas", wherein all speech deserves a place in the market, and the citizenry will decide(purchase) the best idea.
I found a few lines from the opinion to be helpful in understanding the rationale for the Court's striking down the portions of McCain-Feingold:
"Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content."
"Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false."
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to commend 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. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
I also found interesting the majority's statement that the now-stricken prohibition would have prevented a corporation(profit or non) from erecting a blog that encouraged people to elect/not a candidate. Moreover, these regulations would have permitted the government to ban the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" when it came out.
Personally, I understand the ruling. However, I am confused as to how it will apply to individual contribution caps. Unless I am mistaken, while corporations are now free to spend on political stuff, an individual may only donate $2,400 to a particular candidate. However, people more intelligent than I will pick that up later.