Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling Overturns Campaign Finance Limits

The Supreme Court campaign finance decision came down today. In the end, the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling all but ended spending limits. For the likes of Citizens United and other conservatives, the decision is a win for free speech. For some on the left, it is another blow to

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling Overturns Campaign Finance Limits

 democracy and more proof of corporate rule over America. But the Supreme Court campaign finance decision also means that 2010 election mudslinging will be through the roof.

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was over a 2008 film against Hilary Clinton. Citizens United is a company 'dedicated to restoring our government to citizen's control' and to that extent, they produced an anti-Hilary Clinton movie during the 2008 primaries.

The Federal Election Commission argued that it violated McCain-Feingold and other laws that limit campaign finance by corporations. The case went up to the Supreme Court, and today's campaign finance ruling went 5-4 for Citizens United.

As a result, Citizens United and other corporate groups can now spend as much as they want on behalf of certain candidates - and spend as much as they want attacking them. Labor unions will also get the same benefit, though the focus on the Supreme Court campaign finance decision is centered on corporate influence.

The decision has already been hailed by Republicans and slammed by Democrats. Conservatives and Citizens United see this as a First Amendment issue, while Democrats argue that corporations now have more power over elections than ever. After the loss of the 60-seat majority, and new-found worries about the midterms and President Obama's future, today's ruling is seen as the worst news yet for the left.

McCain-Feingold and other federal laws that limited corporate spending are now weakened. So with the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, the sky is the limit for companies to promote their preferred candidates and attack their enemies.

 Source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2616679/supreme_court_campaign_finance_ruling.html

Supreme Court justices question campaign finance law

The US Supreme Court appears poised to pare back campaign finance reform measures that sharply restrict corporate expenditures during federal campaigns.
Skip to next paragraph

Related Stories

• Supreme Court: a session of firsts Wednesday

At issue in a special hearing Wednesday was whether the court should strike down two legal precedents that bar corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political speech during campaign season.
Although it is difficult to predict how the high court may rule based solely on the questions the justices ask during oral argument, several analysts say five of the nine justices appear united in their skepticism over the two measures.
"We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats," Chief Justice John Roberts said at one point, referring to staff members of the Federal Election Commission which enforces the campaign finance laws.
Three justices, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, are on record opposing the two provisions. By the end of the 80-minute oral argument, it appeared that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are prepared to vote with their colleagues on the court's conservative wing.
Conservative justices repeatedly raised questions about whether the campaign finance restrictions on corporations were too broad and all-encompassing to pass constitutional muster.
At the same time, the court's liberal wing remained united in the view that the corporate restrictions were justified by Congressional concern about the corruptive and distorting influence of corporate dollars in federal campaigns. Some also suggested that it was unfair for corporations to use shareholder money to pursue political goals.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and the court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, repeatedly stressed that the court should identify narrower grounds to decide the case rather than overturning established legal precedents.
But the conservatives – including Roberts and Alito – seemed determined to correct what they view as an error of constitutional import.

The 'Hillary' documentary

The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involves a decision by the FEC to block video-on-demand broadcasts of a 90-minute documentary attacking the potential presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The film, "Hillary: The Movie," was produced by a conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United. The group complained that the FEC action was an unconstitutional form of government censorship of political speech.
The government responded that the documentary was similar to a pre-election broadcast attack advertisement and thus could be regulated by the government under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
The high court is considering whether to overturn the section of BCRA that deals with corporate spending before and during elections. In addition, the court is considering overturning a 1990 decision in a case called Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The 1990 case established the legal foundation for the corporate restrictions later adopted in BCRA.

'Corporate electioneering'?

In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R) of Arizona and Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, the two cosponsors of BCRA, warned that overturning the corporate restrictions in the law would be a "drastic step."
"At stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of Americans that could be drowned out by large corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate electioneering are called into question," the senators said.
"During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, whom we both voted for, promised to respect precedent," Senators McCain and Feingold said. "If he casts the deciding vote to overrule [the two legal precedents] it would completely contradict that promise, and could have serious consequences for our democracy."
Others were pleased with the apparent direction of the court.
"Based on today's argument, free speech advocates can be optimistic for a broad vindication of First Amendment rights," said Steve Simpson, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice. "Several justices recognized that a piecemeal approach to free speech is insufficient to protect vital constitutional rights."
Mr. Simpson added, "Corporate speech bans are nothing more than government censorship of selected speakers. The simple fact is it takes money, including corporate money, to speak up and be heard. Under the First Amendment, the government has no business deciding which speakers gain admittance to the marketplace of ideas."
Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, holds a different view.
"Since the dawn of the Republic, the court has recognized that corporations are artificial entities that enjoy unique advantages and must therefore be subject to greater government oversight," Mr. Kendall said. "If the court turns back on this constitutional text and history, it will blatantly disregard the will of the people and unleash corporate influence on elections."

FOnt: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0910/p02s01-usju.html

Supreme Court: campaign finance overhaul in 'Hillary' case?

By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 8, 2009

The US Supreme Court this week takes up a potential crossroads case that could greatly expand the ability of corporations and labor unions to wield influence in federal elections.
The high court on Wednesday is re-hearing a case it heard last spring involving a Federal Election Commission (FEC) effort to block an unflattering 90-minute video portrait of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was then running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The film was called, "Hillary: The Movie."
The FEC said the film was the equivalent of an electioneering attack advertisement and thus could be regulated under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The conservative nonprofit group that produced the film, Citizens United, charged that the FEC's actions amounted to unconstitutional suppression of political speech.
"Hillary: The Movie" is a documentary, the group said, not a political advertisement.
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, asks a fundamental question: Whether corporations and labor unions have the same protected First Amendment free speech rights as individuals to engage in political debate during elections without facing government censorship.
The answer to that question is important because it could open the door to a flood of corporate and union dollars to try to influence federal elections.
The case could mark a turning point in the legal battle over campaign-finance reform. The justices have suggested they will be taking a close look at two existing legal precedents with an eye toward overturning them. Both deal with government efforts to restrict corporate spending for certain issue advertising and other political broadcasts immediately prior to elections.
During the earlier oral argument in March, a government lawyer – in response to a hypothetical question – told the justices that the FEC had the power to ban corporate-produced political books that urge the election or defeat of a particular candidate. The exchange may have triggered the high court's decision to re-hear the case and closely examine the underlying precedents.
"When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong," writes Theodore Olson, lawyer for Citizens United, in his brief to the court. "And it is a sure sign as any that a return to first principles is in order," he said.
Not so fast, counters Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in her brief. "Overruling the [two prior cases] would fundamentally alter the legal rules governing participation of corporations – including the nation's largest for-profit corporations – in electoral campaigns, and would make vast sums of corporate money available for overt electioneering," she writes.
Since 1947, federal campaign laws have barred corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds in federal elections, and corporate contributions to candidates have been banned since 1907. But the regulations have been difficult to enforce.
The 2002 campaign-finance law sought to close what reform advocates said were "loopholes" permitting corporations and unions to support candidates through sham issue advertisements.
Opponents of the legislation claimed the law was too restrictive of corporate speech.
Now the high court may be on the verge of declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their money and express a corporate viewpoint during elections, just like individual voters.
A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."
Solicitor General Kagan seeks in her brief to draw a sharp distinction between corporations, the nation's founding fathers, and individual voters. "John Hancock pledged his own fortune," Ms. Kagan writes. "When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."

Font: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0908/p02s01-usju.html