The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that, practice and precedent to the contrary, the First Amendment gives corporations and unions the power to spend as much of their general treasuries as they care to influence candidate elections—just as long as always they do it independently of the candidates themselves. The conclusion may be good or bad, but it had little to do with the cause before it, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Citizens United, is a rich non-profit that last year on the eve of a primary wanted to offer by pay-per-view, DVD, and in theaters, “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute attack ad masquerading as a documentary, and to which for-profit corporations contributed a pittance. Now the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, forbids—as the Court said—“broadcast, cable, or satellite communications; capable of reaching at least 50,000 persons in the relevant electorate; made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general federal election; by a labor union or a . . . non-media corporation; paid for with general treasury funds; and susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” We’re talking about television ads, but, to be safe, Citizens asked the FEC to green-light Hillary in advance. The FEC wouldn’t; Citizens appealed.
The BCRA was intended, among other things, to stop corporations and unions from pouring cash into eve-of-election broadcast buys to promote or attack candidates they liked or didn’t. The fear was that post-election the winners might feel overly beholden enough to such big buddies. And vice versa. Restrictions on corporate and union political spending were first codified in 1907’s Tillman Act, and survived the scrutiny of the Court itself in 2003’s McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, and 1990’s Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
The Court usually restricts itself to the facts and arguments before it, decides cases on the narrowest grounds possible, avoids constitutional issues, defers to Congress on matters like campaign law, and is loath to overturn its earlier decisions. It could have ruled that the statute didn’t apply to pay-per-view, or that the corporate contribution to Hillary was too inconsequential to trigger the ban, or that the FEC was right, or . . . Instead, a five-man majority, racing past the signposts of restraint, overturned parts of McConnell and all of Austin—decisions Citizens hadn’t challenged—to conclude that the government can’t ban political speech, that corporations and unions have as much right to it as any one, and that there is no reason to worry that elected officials could be corrupted by the favors of a conglomerate that spends as much as it takes to get an opponent defeated or an incumbent re-elected.
No. Really.
Resources:
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf - Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/652/case.html - McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2002)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html
the supreme court says no ban on speech, even if it means corporations can spend millions on influencing elections. and we're to believe this is something new.
In the last presidential campaign enormous funds were raised from sources thought to be foreign and committed to the demise of our Nation, favoring one candidate over another. It has, I believe, never been fully disclosed who or what these sources were. Therefore, should not our corporations, identified and apart from the candidate, offer opinions especially when a corporation's rights can be infringed upon? Free speech is a God-given right guaranteed by our Constitution. Mr. Jefferson would not inhibit any speech for this is freedom. However, he would point out it is important for our citizenry to be educated so as to discern that which would build us up and that which would tear us down.
Post new comment