US Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Reform

[Pangloss]

The US Supreme Court has struck down the key element of campaign finance reform, saying that limits on non-profit corporate donations to campaigns are unconstitutional.

 

In a landmark 5-to-4 decision announced Thursday, the high court overturned a 1990 legal precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a different lineup of justices upheld government restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations during elections.

 

“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0121/Supreme-Court-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech

 

Limits on for-profit corporations were left intact, and unions are still limited as well. That has been often seen as the dividing line between conservatives and liberals on this issue, with conservatives preferring no limits at all and liberals preferring limits only on for-profit corporations (leaving unions and non-profit special interest groups free), however Democrats roundly derided today's decision, perhaps over a "slippery slope" concern. I'm not yet entirely clear on these points, but I wonder if their position will change once the dust settles.

 

In my opinion this presents a huge problem, because special-interest donations are the real meat of the need for campaign finance reform. I agree that it presents a constitutional conundrum, and I hope that a better solution may be found. Perhaps they can tackle the problem from the spending side instead of the collections side.

 

What do you all think?

[npts2020]

Pangloss; The last sentence of what you highlighted says it overturns limits for all corporate donations profit and non-profit. Personally I don't think it will have much effect anyway since the process already hinges almost entirely on raising the most money. Seems to me like they are just legitimizing the buying of candidates that already goes on.

[Pangloss]

Hm, you're right, it does. Looking back at the article, it also goes on to say this, which is what lead to my mistake:

 

The high court decision leaves intact campaign contribution regulations – including laws barring campaign contributions to federal candidates from corporations and unions. It also leaves intact laws barring so-called soft-money contributions to political parties.

 

I guess the key there is "federal candidates" -- apparently they made a distinction between those and "local" candidates, though I can't imagine why.

[bascule]

I think centerstage in this issue is the right for corporations to purchase ads in support of a candidate. From the synopsis of your CSMonitor article, Pangloss:

 

The Supreme Court campaign finance ruling on Thursday means corporations can spend freely on political ads leading up to elections. The Thursday decision invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that sought to limit corporate influence.

 

As mentioned in the article's headlines, this is ostensibly done in defense of "free speech"

 

I'm certainly an opponent of "corporate personhood" and do not believe that corporations deserve identical rights to individuals. Personally I think this is a huge backwards step which will only further compound corporate control of this country.

[npts2020]

In the end it is expected the rules will apply to candidates for office at any level of government. This is the result of what the real criterion for appointing Supreme Court justices has been, their friendliness to corporate interests. The debates about abortion, gun control, etc were merely distractions to keep away from this main goal of appointing corporate friendly justices. I am with Bascule when it comes to granting corporations personhood on par (or above) with that of citizens. This is a large step in that direction IMO.

[Pangloss]

I would point out that green corporations and labor unions benefit from these things as well. It's hardly the province of the GOP, npts2020 -- think what you like about appointees, but Democrats get just as much money from corporations as Republicans.

 

The left is very hypocritical about this issue. Just last week Congress, with no logical basis whatsoever, exempted labor unions from the Cadillac tax, defying the entire purpose of HAVING a Cadillac tax. Get rid of some of the hypocrisy in who gets favors (and why), and the left would probably have a lot more success with this issue.

 

The thing to remember is that while this IS a left-versus-right issue, it is NOT a Democrats-versus-Republicans issue. On this issue our elected representatives are very bipartisan in their failure to represent us.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

The thing to remember is that while this IS a left-versus-right issue, it is NOT a Democrats-versus-Republicans issue.

 

To me this is a corporations vs. individual rights issue. Per this ruling corporations win. It doesn't matter if said corporation is Wal-Mart or a labor union. This is a collusion of personal freedoms with corporate rights which is extremely deleterious in my mind. I strongly disagree with the idea that the bill of rights applies to a corporation.

 

I personally wish things would go back to the way they were.

[npts2020]

Pangloss & Bascule; I would tend to agree with both of you. The fact that our elected representatives haven't been representing us is the point I was trying to make. Both sides have been appointing corporate friendly Justices and I would go so far as to state, that has been the main criterion for their appointment.

[D H]

The federal government, which obviously was on the side of the FEC in this case (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), lost the case back on March 25, 2009 when oral arguments were made. What if a corporation backed the publication of a book instead of a movie? Alito asked "would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?"

 

The answer was "I think the Constitution would have permitted Congress to apply the electioneering communication restrictions ... to additional media as well." He later made it crystal clear in response to a hypothetical question about a corporation (rather than its campaign finance limited PAC) publishing a book: "we could prohibit the publication of the book."

 

McCain Feingold pretty much died because the FEC over-argued its case (and somehow managed to do so with both feet firmly planted in mouth).

[Pangloss]

The federal government, which obviously was on the side of the FEC in this case (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), lost the case back on March 25, 2009 when oral arguments were made. What if a corporation backed the publication of a book instead of a movie? Alito asked "would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?"

 

The answer was "I think the Constitution would have permitted Congress to apply the electioneering communication restrictions ... to additional media as well." He later made it crystal clear in response to a hypothetical question about a corporation (rather than its campaign finance limited PAC) publishing a book: "we could prohibit the publication of the book."

 

McCain Feingold pretty much died because the FEC over-argued its case (and somehow managed to do so with both feet firmly planted in mouth).

 

Interesting.

[bascule]

The federal government, which obviously was on the side of the FEC in this case (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), lost the case back on March 25, 2009 when oral arguments were made.

 

Was this even referenced in the verdict?

[D H]

Was this even referenced in the verdict?

Yes, in multiple places. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) and search for "book". The word is used 11 times. From the majority opinion, (pages are page numbers in the majority opinion, not PDF page numbers),

 

Page 16

First is the uncertainty caused by the litigating position of the Government. ... The Government also suggests that an as-applied challenge to §441b’s ban on books may be successful, although it would defend §441b’s ban as applied to almost every other form of media including pamphlets. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–66 (Sept. 9, 2009). The Government thus, by its own position, contributes to the uncertainty that §441b causes.

 

Page 20

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. ... Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

 

Page 33

If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books.

[bascule]

Well, even so, that seems like little more than a slippery slope argument to me, until they try to actually ban books. Even if they suggest interest in doing so at some point...

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm certainly an opponent of "corporate personhood" and do not believe that corporations deserve identical rights to individuals. Personally I think this is a huge backwards step which will only further compound corporate control of this country.

 

Oh, I support a corporation's right to personhood. They should be able to be arrested and spend a few nights in jail like the rest of us, or get sentenced to death if they kill someone, etc. If they don't like that then they should stop trying to be a person.