Candidates and Political Parties Are Losers in Campaign Finance Case
What Happens Next?
Now that we have the decision, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) needs to move quickly to provide guidance to the regulated community and identify the regulations that must be repealed or amended to comply with the Court’s holding.
The decision also emphasizes the importance of the coordinated communications rulemaking currently pending before the FEC. Communications that are coordinate with candidates or political parties are considered contributions. The regulatory line between independent and coordinated expenditures is the next fault line in this ongoing battle.
The Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission case moves to the front of the line in terms of cases to watch. The RNC is challenging McCain-Feingold’s soft-money ban on constitutional grounds so that it may participate in state elections and engage in issue advocacy on the same terms as other groups. Political parties must be permitted to raise money in the same amounts and from the same sources as outside groups if they are to compete in the political market place.
Initial Thoughts on the Citizens United Opinion
Prior to yesterday’s ruling, corporations and unions were prohibited from sponsoring advertisements advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate, and were also not permitted to air certain issue advocacy advertisements in close proximity to federal elections.
This decision will result in more robust discussion of the issues, incumbents and candidates. Individuals and groups, including for-profit and nonprofit corporations, can hold incumbents accountable by sponsoring advertisements educating their constituents and voters about votes, policy positions, and qualifications for office.
In basic terms, the Court holding reaffirmed the long standing First Amendment principle that the government cannot restrict political speech based on the identity or characteristics of the speaker (i.e., corporation versus individual), and that our county’s democracy is strengthened when more individuals and groups speak out about candidates, officeholders and important issues of the day. As the majority opinion states:
Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means of content control. … The Government may not by these means deprive the public the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. Slip op. at 24
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. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. Id. at 40.
The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical pre-election period is not a permissible remedy. Id. at 45.
So long as the advertisements are independent of candidates and political parties, corporations are permitted to offer their own views on candidates and officeholder to the public.
The Court also reasoned that public advertisements criticizing incumbents does not result in corruption or the appearance of corruption — the sole justification for limiting political speech and a major blow to the government’s position in the case. The government argued that a corporation’s aggregation of wealth and the state conferred liability protections provide it with an unfair advantage. This allows a corporation to distort the political marketplace because it has more resources to spend. As the argument goes, the aggregation of wealth bears no relation to support for the corporation’s speech and therefore such funds should not be spent on political advertising. The ability to distort political speech also results in gratitude by officeholders which is another form of corruption. The majority flatly rejected these arguments.
The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. . . . The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. Id. at 44.
Also called in question by the decision is the pro-regulation group argument that preventing circumvention justifies restricting political speech. The decision is a major blow to their campaign finance theories.
In sum, this case will produce a significant impact on the 2010 elections and the legislative debates considered in Washington this year. We will see more groups spending more money to inform voters about their policy positions.
Let Freedom Ring. Free speech is legal again. Thank you SCOTUS!
I totally agree and I cannot figure why the court has decided in this irresponsible manner. Congress will have to step in to fix this right away. There are several bills being introduced and hopefully, on this issue, both sides of the aisle will put politics aside and restore sanity in the name of common sense and Democracy. Will they do it? Who knows.
Flash.
The American people are the big winners every time another facet of the constitutionality of free speech is upheld.
It’s now, as the Democrats would say when trying to discredit, John Roberts, settled law. So stop whining Mcginley.
New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts and now the Supreme Court have made it loud and clear that unfettered, ideologic, socialistic progressive garbage, the kind used to kill 80 million people in its name in the 20th century, along with its present day attack on America with massive spending (government spending), was taking this country down a path fraught with land mines, danger, eventual bankruptcy and missile defenselessness.
The working man can thank small corporations, partnerships and proprietorships, not to mention big corporations for the ability
to live the American Dream. Labor unions and teacher’s unions once were useful, about as useful as half inflated tires on a hot day.
Buster, take the Supreme Court decision, the one before the bigot Sotomayor had the chance to lay it waste, and learn to at least accept it. It’s the best thing to happen to the working man since the industrial revolution. Our forefathers wouldn’t just agree with me. After reading your missive, they’d enroll you, forthwith, into the witless protection program. They’d call you Inspector Clueless.
The tide has come in. The worm has turned. The progressive ideology that wanted to kill free enterprise and the independence and chance of the American worker to seek the American Dream, missed; not to mention wanting to take over the means of production and a sixth of the U.S. economy while exploding the costs and costs of medical insurance. Bad, bad ideas. Bad, bad motivations.
Progressivism was on life support anyway, the way America was rising up against it, and our wonderful Supreme Court, 5 to 4, just pulled its plug.
Now the job is to explain what an evil progressivism really is. Which I’ll put off the another day. Suffice to say, we dodged a socialist bullet.
Thank goodness for Scot Brown.
In 1775, at Corcord, the first revolution began. Massachusetts is a fitting place for the second one to begin again. Not with the shot heard ’round the world.
The vote. Massachusetts, I knew you had it in you. I’m proud of you. You’re patriots, every last one of you.
Love Ya, Rachel
I wouldn’t shout from the rooftops folks… conservatives stand to lose big on this. At this point they have opened the floodgate on Hollywood, and leading up to the 2010 election you are going to have Law&Order:SVU running weekly episodes about evil conservatives raping and killing in the name of whoever is running for office on the Republican ticket.
Moreover, the TV stations, now released of their requirement to be somewhat fair can openly deny access to conservative commercials and messages as a form of their own free speech.
This isn’t good, folks.
The fewer regulations, the better. First of all, freedom is better than slavery. Secondly, we all know liberals will cheat, so the rules are only for republicans (remember when Obama’s campaign was caught coordinating with ACORN?).
And for JRyan – So, you believe Hollywood is legally not allowed to make anti-conservative movies? Hm. It’s wrong on so many levels. And you think MSNBC does not deny conservative message? Hm. You are from another planet, right?
4 jryan
You do have a coupla things going for you; you do know how to spell and string pedestrian sentences together.
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have mastered the ability to evaluate a set of facts;
or conclude or deduce. Which, when writing missives, often come in handy.
Or is it just a case
of your whistling in your progressive wind?
Next time, really do try to consult your brain before opening your mouth. I don’t mean to be mean, but on this one
you’re really off base, right out of left field. Better take some batting practice. You just struck out. Grab some bench.
have a nice day, Rachel
Poor citizen:Thanks for showing us the inner stalnist residing inside the carcass of the libtard.SCRATCH A LIBERAL;FIND A STALINIST!ANY attempt to nullify this restoration of the first amendment will provoke popular retaliation based on the second.
#4 RYAN:Keep dreaming privates Ryan,this is a catastrophe for the left.Holywood,an increasingly irrelevant and freakish institution cannot compete with the new conservative media,which will be immensely strengthened by this decision.NBSCBS@ABS,are watched only by the moribund,the mentally ill,and the retarded. First Massachusetts, and now the restoration of the first amendment:How’s the hope and change working for you?
Personally, I don’t care who it helps and who it harms. It was the right decision.
This case is a major victory for the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is a core First Amendment value that the Court correctly upheld. As I posted yesterday on ExpressAdvocacy.com:
“Score one for the First Amendment. Today, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed our national commitment to free speech. In sum, more speech is better than less speech. The electorate and constituents are better off with more information rather than less.”
While the First Amendment and the people won yesterday, political party committees, such as the RNC, and candidates are still subject to the strict McCain-Feingold funding restrictions. This means that they may not be able to raise the funds necessary to compete with the outside groups that can raise funds in unlimited amounts, including from unions and corporations. The RNC is challenging the soft money ban in federal court on constitutional grounds which may offer some relief if it prevails.
Here’s a thought. How about if we eliminate the FEC (and reduce the debt with their budget) altogether and allow people to speak their minds freely? I know, I know, what would our founders say to such an outrageous proposition!
Soros will have a field day.
It was the right law…but, the influence of foreign money came in through a certain credit card scam in a recent election, when the law was not enforced.
Those who are inclined to break the law, abuse the system, tear down the establishment…will find a way to make a mockery of our freedoms.
Every bit of liberty is something to rejoice in. Every vove toward the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law we should take delight in.
This decision is a surprising, as it is wonderful.
This will help overturn the monopoly of the MSM and Hollywood.
Now we need to take on the Academy.
3. rachel peepers:.
The American people are the big winners every time another facet of the constitutionality of free speech is upheld.
What about the constitutionality of corporations as private citizens?
You’ve been distracted . . . again.
“This decision will result in more robust discussion of the issues, incumbents and candidates. Individuals and groups, including for-profit and nonprofit corporations, can hold incumbents accountable by sponsoring advertisements educating their constituents and voters about votes, policy positions, and qualifications for office.”
And this is wrong because….????
…election winners will be “in gratitude” to those who helped get them elected???
And this doesn’t happen NOW???
Excuse me, but you don’t think Coakley would have been “in gratitude” to the health insurance and Big Pharma lobbyists who held that huge fund raiser in D.C. for her???
The only difference now this will make is WE THE VOTERS get to SEE the “positions”, or the “favorite candidate”, for WHOEVER wants to produce a political message in the media (with proper DISCLOSURE, of course!)
Oh…but voters are TOO DUMB to notice or see who is producing the “propaganda”, too easily “lead by the nose” to make their own decision!
Is THAT what you are saying???
Give me a break!
ANYTIME more discourse on a candidate or an issue is available in the marketplace of ideas…IT’S A GOOD THING!
Yes, even for the unions and environmental wackos of the world.
You don’t like what someone says…VOTE for the OTHER GUY!!
It’s really that simple.
I think the pronouncements of dramatic change are a bit over-done. We all know that large corporations and unions have enormous financial leverage on politicians already. This ruling may simplify the process of influencing elections with money, but it will not open up any spigots that have heretofore been closed.
To the extent that it hurts incumbents, more the better. But one need be careful not to substitute wishful thinking for clear thinking.
Jyran
At this point they have opened the floodgate on Hollywood, and leading up to the 2010 election you are going to have Law&Order:SVU running weekly episodes about evil conservatives raping and killing in the name of whoever is running for office on the Republican ticket.
Um, what has been stopping them right now? Indeed, Hollywood celebs have never been restricted on stumping for candidates and thus, using their INEQUAL influence.
Face it, McCain-Feingold turned out exactly as it was supposed to – as an Incumbent Protection Act. It sought to stiffle all “election COMMUNICATIONS” 30-60 days prior to the election. IE American citizens are too stupid to be trusted to judge for themselves the wheat from the chaff. AND it carved out an exemption for one type of corporate entity — Mainstream Media – allowed to editorialize, endorse, write articles on who they want in office right up to election day.
SCOTUS merely reaffirmed the First Amendment.
Hurray! Free speech wins. Now real corporations can compete with media corporations.
Buying ads does not equal buying votes. The problem isn’t the corps spending money to get a message out, the problem is uneducated voters that don’t put the effort into knowing who and what they are voting for.
For Shyzik:
“What about the constitutionality of corporations as private citizens?”
Same as constitutionality of NYT as a private citizen.
BTW, corporations are associations of people, nothing more, nothing less.
The winners are not necessarily determined by who has the most money or is best at spending it. The losers will be candidates and issues whose passage depends on demoguery (sic). With the court ruling comes the ability of corporations to defend themselves from outrageous and false accusations.
Cheers,
In the 2008 election it seemed to me that rivers of dollars from corporations, unions, and advocacy groups were spent anyway in spite of McCain/Feingold. The dollar rivers just got diverted into proxy groups like ACORN, MoveOn.org, Organizing for America, for spending on political campaigns, advertisements, getting out the vote, lobbying for special interests etc. It was all very murky and done in the dark.
With the new rules maybe the same dollars will be spent, but with more transparency. Then people could see clearly that Wall Street dumps truckloads of money over the Democratic cliff and that others (gun manufacturers perhaps?; I don’t know)dump cash over the Republican cliff.
Making political speech free is the right thing as long as it is absolutely clear who is speaking and who is paying for the speech.
Excellent judgment in upholding the 1st amendment right of free speech. Let the ideas battle each other. One thing the founding fathers were sure of is the truth always wins if it is not suppressed. Yes it is hard to defend against lies and opinions sometimes. Look at how the left has lied about what they really believe. Look at how the Nazi’s lied to the Jews before they executed them. Look at how the commies slaughtered their millions. Just think if we do not know the truth like those murdered until it was too late. Campaign finance was a ruse to keep private opinion out of public discourse.
Look at the damage and the potential damage caused by the main stream Medias suppression of the truth about Obama’s personal associations. Had they spoke the truth and not suppressed the truth; it may have saved millions of Americans from personal tragedy.
*shrug*
I don’t think the problem is so much one of who spends the money, but whether they have to stand by their claim in any personal way. I’m not immersed in american political culture, but I’ve heard and seen some astonishingly dishonest examples of american “attack ads”. As long as political speech is made by candidates themselves, a lie can be directly challenged in a meaningful way. If lies are spoken by third parties who can hide behind associations, then the candidate can later deny any responsibility.
I’m a big fan of the “I’m XXX and I endorse this ad” (or in our context, “authorised by …”). If the ad is misleading, XXX can be personally taken to task for it – preferably in a timely way. But if no individual HAS to endorse the ad, then nobody can be asked any direct questions about their claim. Astroturf and FUD can win an election and none of it can be tied to the winning candidate later.
everybody hit the deck al-queda is everywhere
#14 Skweezits: Which corporatiopns do you mean hypocrite? NBC(GE),CBS THE NYSLIMES,and CBS? Let’s not forget George Soros’ little agitprop groups,and of course Hollywwood and MTV(moron television).The leftist monopoly on propaganda is going down the sane drain that is swallowing up Obama’s rogue presidency.