Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns

[Caliga]

Big deal IMO.  I mean, you had to assume it was already happening, just through backdoor channels.  Might as well let companies be honest about their donations, and let the transactions be transparent so customers know and can boycott a company if they disagree with their lobbying initiatives.

Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns
FOXNews.com

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.

The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.

Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.

Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold.

"Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.

Fox News' Lee Ross and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Drakken]

Worrisome.

What does it entain, in reality? Does it mean that moral persons, PACs, and lobbying groups are now free to donate as much money they want to candidates, even to the point of bankrolling the latters' whole campaign without them needing donations from private citizens?

[Admiral Yi]

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday

woops

Drakken: I think the donation limits are still in place and what this means is that corporations and whoever can spend as much as they want on "issue" (campaign) ads of their own.

[The Minsky Moment]

As yi says, the decision has no effect on bans on direct corporate contributions, which remain intact.  It only impacts restrictions on "indepedent expenditures"  - where an entity funds its own advertisements without any direct coordination with a candidate's campaign.  How much this distinction really matters in terms of practical effect is another question.

Two interesting and unusual features of this case:

1) It directly and openly overruled a recent prior precedent, contrary to the principle of stare decisis .  Roberts' concurring opinion in particular seemed to rein back somewhat on the stare decisis doctrine.  Could this be a prelude to a renewed assault on some of the remnants of the Warren Court precedents?

2) The plaintiffs had brought the case as an "as applied" challenge to the federal law.  I.e. they were not arguing for the law to be striken; they were just arguing that the law could not be applied to their specific case in a constitutional manner.  They specifically dropped a "facial" challenge attacking the entire law as unconstitutional.  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court on its own decided the case as a facial challenge and struck the whole offending part of the statute from the books.  This is unusual both because it goes outside the questions formally presented by the parties and because the Court usually prefers a narrower basis of decision (an as applied challenge) where a broader one can be avoided.

It was particularly interesting to see the majority talking about the need to address the matter as a facial challenge because of possible future chilling effects on speech which could not be resolved by case-by-case adjudication.  That struck me as someone at odds with my vague recollection of those justices' views as expressed in prior cases.  Interesting to see whether this comes back to bite in another context where these Justices may be less sympathetic to the precise interest at stake.

[Grallon]

Where money rules there can be no true democracy.   




G.

[grumbler]

2) The plaintiffs had brought the case as an "as applied" challenge to the federal law.  I.e. they were not arguing for the law to be striken; they were just arguing that the law could not be applied to their specific case in a constitutional manner.  They specifically dropped a "facial" challenge attacking the entire law as unconstitutional.  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court on its own decided the case as a facial challenge and struck the whole offending part of the statute from the books.  This is unusual both because it goes outside the questions formally presented by the parties and because the Court usually prefers a narrower basis of decision (an as applied challenge) where a broader one can be avoided.

It was particularly interesting to see the majority talking about the need to address the matter as a facial challenge because of possible future chilling effects on speech which could not be resolved by case-by-case adjudication.  That struck me as someone at odds with my vague recollection of those justices' views as expressed in prior cases.  Interesting to see whether this comes back to bite in another context where these Justices may be less sympathetic to the precise interest at stake.

It is a rather bald-faced example of judicial activism, given that even the plaintiffs were not calling for it.  I am guessing, though, that the supporters of these justices will be back to moaning about the horrors of judicial activism before the ink dries on this decision.

[Viking]

One of these things that puzzle me is the US obsession with limits on campaign finance. Most European countries have some sort of limit, yes, but for the most part these are minimal. The real limit is the inability of money to have any real effect. Most, if not all, money goes through either central or local political parties. So no single donor can be large enough to outweigh the collective interests of all the other donors, not to mention outside interests can't overpower internal institutional inertia/interests. Tammany Hall, yes.

I can't help thinking that if there were unlimited donations to the RNC and DNC which then funnelled that money down to the local parties then money would buy less influence, leaving the power in the hands of local political apparatchiks like we have in europe.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is a rather bald-faced example of judicial activism, given that even the plaintiffs were not calling for it.  I am guessing, though, that the supporters of these justices will be back to moaning about the horrors of judicial activism before the ink dries on this decision.

Before ever getting to the First Amendment question at issue, Kennedy dedicates 15 pages to explaining why what he is doing is proper despite the seeming violation of traditional precautionary principles, in the course of which he debunks the arguments made to the contrary by the very same party that he ultimately rules for.  Basically, he is telling the plaintiff that it wins more than it asked for and indeed more than the plaintiff itself conceded it could legitimately ask for.

[The Minsky Moment]

leaving the power in the hands of local political apparatchiks like we have in europe.

There - you answered your own question.   

[grumbler]

Before ever getting to the First Amendment question at issue, Kennedy dedicates 15 pages to explaining why what he is doing is proper despite the seeming violation of traditional precautionary principles, in the course of which he debunks the arguments made to the contrary by the very same party that he ultimately rules for.  Basically, he is telling the plaintiff that it wins more than it asked for and indeed more than the plaintiff itself conceded it could legitimately ask for.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if everyone accepted that the same principals apply even when their own oxen are being gored.

[MadImmortalMan]

I never saw such a strong argument for stare decisis anyway. I mean, the court can make a mistake. Suggesting that those mistakes can never be corrected is a limitation I'd rather not shackle the court with.

[The Brain]

I came across this footage from the SC session: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4

[Barrister]

I never saw such a strong argument for stare decisis anyway.

The argument is for consistency and predictability.  That we should be able to rely on what past precedents have said, and not constantly re-litigate the same battles over and over.

Now sometimes mistakes happen, and they need to be corrected.  A 2006 SCC case (R v Khelawon) had the following comment which I found to be amusing "As I will explain, I have concluded that the factors to be considered on the admissibility inquiry cannot be categorized in terms of threshold and ultimate reliability.  Comments to the contrary in previous decisions of this Court should no longer be followed." Which seemed to be a rather understated way of saying that a previous decision was seriously wrong.   

But that being said, that should be the very rare exception, and not the rule.

[Drakken]

But BB, shouldn't it be reserved to decisions from the judiciary which were either gross blunders or constitutionally unfounded in the first place, and not to strike down laws and jurisprudence which were duly approved by the legislative and/or had been deemed to pass any threshold of constitutionality by earlier decisions?

[The Minsky Moment]

I never saw such a strong argument for stare decisis anyway. I mean, the court can make a mistake. Suggesting that those mistakes can never be corrected is a limitation I'd rather not shackle the court with.

A big concern is predictability and reliance.  Rule of law sort of loses its some meaning if you don't really know what the law is going to be in crucial areas from day to day. 

I agree that too much emphasis can be placed on it, and I actually agree with the tenor of Roberts' opinion.  I do think it signals a subtle shift that in light of recent personnel changes (O'Connor was a big fan of stare decisis) suggests that we might seem some more shaking up of older precedents.