Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Laws
This morning, so-called campaign finance “reform” was dealt a staggering blow when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC, overturning a 20-year-old precedent upholding bans on independent political speech by incorporated entities, including businesses, unions, and advocacy groups. A key portion of McCain-Feingold was also struck down.
In practical terms, the decision simply means that incorporated entities such as General Electric, the United Auto Workers, the National Rifle Association, and the American Society of Travel Agents can now run ads from their general treasury funds that urge people to vote for or against a specific candidate.
Needless to say, the decision is causing a great deal of concern among those terrified that Americans might hear political speech from sources they’d prefer be silenced. For example, in anticipation of the decision Florida Congressman Alan Grayson has introduced bills that would impose a 500% excise tax on independent political spending by corporations and would ban stock exchanges from trading shares of companies that engage in political spending.
The case in question was originally about whether a nonprofit group, Citizens United, could air ads promoting a movie they had produced that was critical of then-candidate for president Hillary Clinton, and whether they could offer it through video-on-demand.
Given the clear words of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”), this shouldn’t have been a problem. Criticizing candidates for office should presumably be fully protected speech.
Unfortunately, our nation’s complex web of campaign finance laws strictly regulate who may speak, what they may say, and where they can and cannot get their funding from to promote and disseminate their speech. Citizens United fell afoul of these laws, and were told by the government that because they were incorporated, and because they accepted some funds from for-profit corporations, they could not air their ads or show their movie.
Freedom of speech wins.
All the marxist judges voted against.
Another blow to the totalitarians, that McCain had helped to gag the debate.
Great days for America’s Freedom.
I dunno, the way I see it, it should be legal for me to give any amount of my own personal money, but a corporation isn’t spending its own money is it – it’s spending it’s money that should be going to shareholders isnt it?
For the life of me I cannot figure out exactly where a corporation speaks from (“Congress shall make no law…”). Can anyone explain to me why it SHOULD be legal for ANY entity that does not have a voting right, to give money to a politician? Please, when you come up with your excuse, address how its not out and out bribery.
and as well they should not be allowed. this has nothing to do with freedom of speech and it has to do with influencing a cadidate or a policy by a corporation. besides why are you moaning? these are the same conservative judges nominated by president bush…
I’m not sure why the Left is so worked up about this. The decision apparently also protects the right of Labor Unions to influence elections. Certainly the Left should be happy about that.
And now of course all the totalitarians will play their “I am an innocent soul” game and they will speak AS IF we didn’t know that thanks to the McCain-Feingold ONLY SOROS has been able to finance political forces in America through his network of organizations.
It’s the end of the “ONLY SOROS” times.
Great day for America.
The conspiracy that brought the radicals in power is crumbling under powerful blows:
American People………………..2
Obama puppet and Soros puppeteer…0
CJ @2
If you don’t like what a board of directors is doing with the corporate money, vote for a different board, or don’t hold the stock. Their job is maximize return to the stock holders; part of that job involves getting politicians elected who don’t excessively interfere in their business.
Is it a bribe? No, not if it is open and above board, publicly reported, and within the law. Further – as a number of politicians are finding out the hard way – too much involvement definitely bounces back on the politician and the corporations.
And of course Obama has immediately showed his anger for this victory of free speech.
And, consistently with his marxist lack of respect for the law, has said that Congress must make new laws….to violate the sentence of the Supreme Court.
Strange, we can’t violate the Supreme Court decision about murder of babies, but we must violate the Supreme Court decisions when they endanger Soros’ control of America’s politics.
(See my post above).
Shut up, half dictator.
The far lefts cry of anguish over this ruling is naive at best. Large corporations ruled D.C. well before today.
Hello.
Feingold and McCain knew it was unconstitutional when they passed the bill. They just wanted it in place
for a few years to get some notoriety and make themselves look like reformers. It was all about self promotion and
self service rather than well intentioned service to the country.
Oh, I love the arrogance of these guys. Using the constitution to put elect-me feathers on their own hats when they’re
much more qualified to wear dunce caps.
I applaud McCains war service; I consider him a real American hero. I detest Feingold. For he’d like America to
turn into some sissified Obama like, Saul Alinsky state. Of a million dependents who are paid for not working .
Vote these two guys out the first chance you get. Their commitment is to do what’s best for themselves, not
what’s best for the country. And when they start playing with the constitution, they don’t deserve positive
reinforcement. Like children, they need to be sent home.
Why hasn’t Soros been arrested and sent to what ever country has a warrant out for arrest?
It doesn’t mater who gives how much money to what candidate in the end it comes down to the voters vote. If you don’t want a candidate that was finance by GE don’t vote for them and allow them to gain office.
This is a good article, but you can only understand the “blurb” after reading the whole thing. “A decisive blow for the First Amendment.” Until you’re done, you don’t know that the author was FOR the decision. (Well, you do, but you don’t know that whoever wrote the “blurb” knew that.)
Might want to rephrase it. Because it shows in search engines, and makes you look like you are railing on SCOTUS. Maybe change it to say:
“A decision affirming First Amendment rights for people and institutions.”
After all, it has always been clear that private companies were allowed to fire almost anyone for anything (aside from the 14th amendment stuff), and so being considered on a First Amendment level that way. This just clarifies some of their other First Amendment rights.
Corporations get taxed by the government. They can be sued by the citizens and the government. They are required to suspend their business activities in countries which are subject to the economic sanctions from the government. They get pressured to do business in the most favored nations of the government. They are required to collect income, social security, and medicare taxes for the government. They are subject to literally thousands of government regulations coming from hundreds of bureaucracies of the government. In addition, they are constantly made the target of political agendas of both politicians and special interest groups. None of this is particularly problematic because we have a need to regulate our marketplace in order to preserve competition and prevent abuse of workers. Corporations cannot vote, but with all of the other burdens they share with the people, including the employment of large numbers of the people, who in turn have a vested interest in political outcomes that are fair to their companies. Letting them speak in the public square, by whatever means they can, seems reasonable to me. As a related aside, we spend less money on our politics than we spend on our toothpaste.
Unions, Soros pukes have had the ability to support with as much money as they wanted. Exempt from rules prohibiting corporations from doing the same. This is a proxy for freedom for American corporations to support candidates in an election. Great for all America.
“Hopefully it is but the first of many victories rolling back these assaults on our liberties!”
Not with the Marxist trained judges we have today. Where is ‘Tail Gunner Joe’ when you need him.
Shucks, what will Barack Obama do now — now that his fund-raising advantage has been stripped away by SCOTUS?
All those multiple, unverified, repeat $199 donations from questionable credit-card accounts. All those foreign (supposedly illegal) contributions submitted by “friendlies” in Canada and Europe . All those checks drafted by such luminaries as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, et al.
All the bogus support that the Obama campaign accepted during the last election cycle can now be effectively offset by the very segment of society that The One has lately been bashing: corporate America.
Delicious irony. Payback just could be a b*tch later this year — and even more so in 2012.
I understand that our Marxist brothers and sisters will suffer head explosion over this decision, but if you read the words of the 1st Amendement and apply strict scrutiny analysis, its hard to fathom how the decision wasn’t more lopsided.
The Court has now recognised the primacy of the right of individuals to organize into a group and speak. This means the Sierra Club and the NRA have equal rights as do Monsanto and the WWF. That is as it should be and as the framers intended.
The Constitution does not guarantee equality of speech, it guarantees the right to speak. Marixists demonstrate daily that they value equality of outcome over rights. That’s not what the Constitution states.
Incumbents will be furious, that’s why Chuck Shummer went off like a M-80 when he spoke about the decision. Shummer is not into expansion of freedom. It makes it harder for ideas to survive in the market place when they have to compete with other ideas.
This is as important as Scott Brown’s victory in MA this week. Its a victory for free speech and fair elections. Ironic though that McCain came acropper in 2008 because of his own rules.
in anticipation of the decision Florida Congressman Alan Grayson has introduced bills that would impose a 500% excise tax on independent political spending by corporations and would ban stock exchanges from trading shares of companies that engage in political spending.
Who did Grayson think he was? Mao? Don’t these fools know how stupid they sound?
Why only politicians? Why not make it legal to make commercials and give money to judges, police officers, jury members etc.? Why is it only the legislators that can get financing. And it shouldn’t be just corporations. Everybody should be allowed to give money to any public official. Imagine how great it would be if I could give money to judges, I wouldn’t have to give money to politicians to change the law in my favor. Probably much cheaper and efficient. Just make it public and transparent so that when I get away with murder, everybody knows why. No harm done. Full transparency. And anybody that thinks that’s unfair. That’s BS because they have the exact same right to pay of public officials themselves.
Bush(fils et pere),Mclame,Brownlow,david Brooks,and other RINO trash,must be frothing at the mouth.This is the death knell of the establishment media.
JL @19
That money goes for political campaigns; it is in fact illegal for politicians to use it otherwise. You can give money to the campaigns of elected judges, as well as elected sheriffs, under similar rules. Comes as no surprise however that a leftie wouldn’t know that.
While at one time I hoped we could somehow reduce the power of special interest money in elections, I have seen there is no practical way of doing so. The first amendment is a cornerstone of our freedoms, so so be it as the court strikes down a patchwork of election finance laws that have accomplished nothing beneficial.
And, now, as a working taxpayer, I have become a member of a minority special interest group exploited by a majority of financial dependents… So, let the race go to the swiftest for a change!
(Legal) bribes should be competitive;
Hurrah for a level playing field !
JL at 19,
The Federal judiciary are appointed by the President. They are not elected. The Constituition explicitly provides for the election of Congress and the President. This decision enables free speech associated with the constitutionally provided for election process. It has no direct bearing on the appointment of judges.
Plutocracy, plain and simple. Whoever has the loudest megaphone wins. We now have government for corporations and by corporations. Anyone who thought we lived in a Democracy is sadly mistaken. That died a long time ago.
24. True for Federal courts, but most State courts have elected judges.
If media corporations have free speech even though they may be completely bias, why no-media corporation can express their opinion? The communist (oh sorry progressives) have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT bias toward their side why the citizen that love America can not have a corporation that supports them?
The Supreme Court rule for Freedom. Our forever THANKS.
I have a question for any of our trolls to answer.Do the “mainstream” media outlets that have been incorporated negate their rights under the 1st amendment?
Any way, this not about camppagin contribution as such, but rather that McCain-Feingold in particular was muzzling 3rd party groups near elections, leaving only the candidates and their parties, plus the media to spin it all.
Praetorian at 25,
Let’s reason abit together. There are all sorts of corporate interests in this country and other group affiliations, including partnerships and limited liability companies. These include purely capitalist enterprises like 3M and Ford and non capitalist advocacy groups like the ACLU, Appalachian Mountain Club, and SEIU. There is also the absolute right for people under our Constitution to assemble. This means they can form groups like Media Matters and petition the government.
Given these freedoms, I can’t understand your bias. There are all sorts of advocacy corporations that petition the government constantly, including very powerful lefty organizations that represent teachers unions, far left environmental groups (PETA offers a good example) and other liberal causes. Much as I find such far left organizations to be intellectually bankrupt, I absolutely accept their right to petition and advocate. You lefties also have an absolute right to form new groups to enhance your advocacy and counter the messages of capitalist constitutionalists like me. You can organize tens of millions of your lefty friends to donate to your marxist causes to run all sorts of negative ads against me.
If the above is true, and it is, I don’t understand your animosity towards the proposition that speech should be free and all should be allowed to speak. The language of the 1st Amendment is explicit and clear. The only objection is that the speakers may have unequal megaphones, but the Constitution doesn’t provide for speech equality, it provides for the right to speak.
Can you address the above intelligently?
There are really only two types of people who will not fight for free speech – fools and tyrants
Alan Grayson, which one are you?
#25,
In addition to Samizdat’s comments above, please read my poorly written post #12 and then reply with your rebuttal. I promise to read it.
The SC was correct in pointing out that corporations (and big labor, too) are not robots – they consist of U.S., warm-blooded citizens whose rights of free speech should not be abridged. Implicit in the left’s whining is the assumption that the American electorate is too stupid to ingest campaign messages and to accept or reject them. Had a law been passed prohibiting corporations and exempting labor unions, the same whiners would be applauding.
6. HalifaxCB: Thanks for NOT answering my question and advocating FOR socialism.
so·cial·ism (sō’shə-lĭz’əm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
11. Eric: ““A decisive blow for the First Amendment.”
If the author had not been in support of the USSC decision, the title would have likely read ‘A decisive blow against the First Amendment.’
Holy crap, the moonbats are all flying out of the cave…in broad daylight. Calm down, my very good friends, take a few breaths, go into a passive state, just for a moment. The world is not at an end.
Years ago, when I was one of you moonbeams, there were two large companies competing to own market share in men’s grooming products. One of them was openly on the right side of the political spectrum, making no bones about it. The other appeared to be neutral. I refused to buy a product from the political company at that time. Some of my friends from those days still won’t buy any of their products. Over time the seemingly neutral company owned market share. (Not claiming politics caused this, just a fact.)
It is often, nay most often, against the interests of corporations to take sides in a political conflict. Their customers, individuals and larger entities, may not like the side chosen and decide not to be customers. Corporations do not wish to politically alienate any possible customers, it is a losing business plan.
In the exceptions-show-there-is-a-rule department, there are corporations expressing their political opinions every single day and night on television, in print, and on the internet. A couple of them are owned by GE, for goodness sakes. (Some say they are being punished for it at this very time. It sure looks that way [NYT, WAPO, NBC, etc, but there are other factors hurting them as well]. GE doesn’t seem to be suffering much, but they are well diversified.)
Prediction 1: There will not be a big change in our lives or politics over this decision. If you resent X, Inc. over some future advertisement, you can place your chips elsewhere. Prediction 2: Corporations will be very, very circumspect about whether to enter any political fray.
However, when a demagogue, like Obama, wrongfully attacks a corporation or an industry that is lawful, he can probably expect a reasoned answer. What’s wrong with that?
Grayson is a marxoid hysteric who is probably afraid of being satirized as a syphilitic stalinist. No wonder he hates the first amendmen!
Re: 30. Samizdat:, responding to Praetorian at 25
“Can you address the above intelligently?” I will try, so “let’s reason abit together”, a little more. In fact, I think your use of the word “reason” is interesting, in that there is no further use of the word (or the principle of logic it implies) throughout the remainder of your post.
To begin with, you fail to apply “reason” while concluding that the incorporation of groups like the ACLU, NRA, or other altruistically motivated (at least in their own minds) organizations, is synonymous with profit motivated corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, General Dynamics, Halliburton, etc. The truth is, capitalism is amoral. Note that I did not say immoral. I make no judgment. But by its own definition, its only pursuit is that of profit, i.e., accumulation of more capital than it currently has. Allegiance to anything else would be an abrogation of the fundamental responsibility it has to its investors.
There are only two things that constrain capitalism’s actions in pursuit of its goal, and those are unprofitable activities, and the rule of law. In support of my statement, I submit capitalism’s (or free trade’s) historic, energetic embracement of everything from slavery, to the Chinese opium wars, to the illicit drug traffic of today, as cases in point. All were profitable, but morally and socially unacceptable. And so, via the proper auspices of government, as authorized by the PEOPLE of our nation, as defined by our CONSTITUTION, and in the best traditions and principles of American democracy and rule of law, and in regards to the PUBLIC WELFARE, and as explicitly charged in OUR CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENT passed laws as deemed necessary, to RESTRAIN THE EXCESSES of capitalism.
I am sure by now I have been branded a Communist (with a capital “C”). Nothing could be further from the truth. I embrace capitalism, and believe that because of it’s incredibly powerful motivator, greed (or “self aggrandizement” if you find the word “greed” insulting, although I don’t), it has the power to provide more goods and services to more people, than any other economic system known. And as long is there is true competition (i.e., no monopolies or restraint of fair trade, evils recognized as CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE and therefore PROHIBITED BY LAW), does so at the lowest price. However, I also embrace the concept of democratic rule of law, which justifiably has the right and the power to constrain it, as it does ALL OTHER of our rights, based on REASON and DEMOCRACY, and as executed under the authority of the CONSTITUTION.
I will defend our rights with the same ferocity as you, but I will judge and examine them with REASON, not with some romantic “Daniel Boone” idea that they are absolute, sacrosanct, inviolable, ad infinitum. But also, I will defend with ferocity the institution of democracy when the establishment of law is necessary to restrict human activity, so that laws passed FAIRLY represent the will of the PEOPLE, whose concern is more likely to be that of the PUBLIC WELFARE, than those resulting from the disproportionately skewed POWER OF MONEY. Freedom of religion? (Try human sacrifice.) Right to own property (Try not paying your property taxes.) Right to bear arms? (Try buying a fully armed Apache helicopter.) Freedom of speech? (The ubiquitous “shout fire in a crowded theater”.) Freedom of travel and movement? (Try going to Cuba.) This last one is a real doozy. How many “righters” disagree with that one? Oh, I see, it DEPENDS!
By the way, I contend that “capitalist constitutionalist” is at best an oxymoron, and at worst, Faschism. NO WHERE in our Constitution, is ANY specific economic form (any more than any specific religion, although our national heritage is predominately Christian), mentioned or preferred. To have done so would have been, by definition, Fascistic. True, our economic heritage is one of free traders, and there is certainly (within the limits of law) recognition of the right to private property. But that “all” (as in “all should be allowed to speak”) should put capitalistic corporations, whose only motive is profit, on the same first ammendment footing as the artistic, ideological, religious and political beliefs and expressions of American citizens, I disagree.
And please, all the political money spent by the “powerful lefty organizations”, unions, Geroge Soros, and me and my “tens of millions of lefty friends” contributing to “Marxist causes” combined, are CHUMP CHANGE in comparison to that spent by the plethora of corporation lobbies infecting our houses of government. That is because we don’t MONETARILY PROFIT from our “investment”, as they do! Now, corporate influence is to be increased EVEN MORE by the unlimited amounts they can spend in controlling who gets there to begin with. And in fact, in so doing, they will probably SAVE what they have to spend on lobbying! All that is important, is the bottom line.
In the reality of modern day election and campaigning mechanics, REASON tells me that although individuals disagree broadly, they are essentially morally motivated. And that the airing and debate of their ideas, and the elective conclusion thereof, is the noble objective of democracy. But when a conglomeration of institutions whose ONLY OBJECTIVE is WEALTH, are given unbridled access to the process, with their astronomically disproportionate sums of money, the proper influence of the citizenry is greatly diluted. It is no longer is “one man, one vote”, but “one dollar, one vote”, and in the interest of public welfare, restraint by law is appropriate, and necessary.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican president) expressed similar. I seldom hear him mentioned in the blogs, nor his infamous speech on leaving office, regarding his concern for the emerging power (post WWII) of the “military, industrial complex”, and its threat to our democracy and traditional American values. I read where the word “political” was included in an early draft. Why it was removed I don’t know, but its reference is certainly implicit in his speech, and its inclusion would certainly have indelibly closed the circle on what we see today, i.e., the primary cause of the current dysfunctionality of our democracy, CORRUPTION BY MONEY. Who can not see it?
Where I find fault with the “right” today, is a pervasive jingoistic belief in unrealistic, romantic ideas of “patriotism” and “Americanism”, coupled with misanthropism. When “government control is evil” and is the fault of “socialist and communists and progressives”, when in reality, government is controlled by an economic hierarchy (directionally the same as the aristocracies we revolted against to begin with), and the control is made possible by THEIR thinking and allegiances, who is really doing the CONTROLLING, and to WHAT END? Massively funded corporate lobbies and campaign contributions, and the FOX news’ and Glen Beck’s appeal to the lowest common denominators of pseudo-patriotism and fear, promote this self-inclined blindness, creating a large congregation of well-meaning American citizens who, in reality, are merely bending over, grabbing their ankles, and asking, “Please sir, may I have another!”
Sorry for the epistle, and I know I have been redundant, but I am too tired to go over it again.
“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” – Louis Brandeis, supreme court justice.