GOPers, Chamber Big Winners In SCOTUS Ruling

Major trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will be able to spend unlimited amounts of money in this year's midterm elections thanks to a SCOTUS ruling today that experts said represented a major overhaul of the nation's campaign finance rules.

"It is a sweeping decision. In one opinion, the Court struck down all bans on corporate independent spending," said Marc Elias, a leading Dem election lawyer at Perkins Coie.

The long-awaited Citizens United v. FEC decision overturned the Court's ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which banned corporations from using company money to fund political ads. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited First Amendment concerns and criticized the FEC for allowing the government to regulate political speech.

The case "will reflect a huge sea-change in campaign finance law," said Robert Kelner, a GOP election lawyer at Covington & Burling. "The Court went all the way. It really relieves any restrictions on corporate spending on independent advertising."

The decision is a major win for opponents of campaign finance reform legislation commonly known as McCain-Feingold. The Court struck down limits on corporate speech, leaving in place only reporting requirements that force groups spending the money to be transparent.

"This case will lead to more spending, I think, in political elections," said Brad Smith, chair of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former FEC commissioner.

Over the long run, the ruling is likely to favor GOPers more than it does Dems. While it does apply to unions and corporations equally, Elias said the presumption is that corporations have more money to spend.

"This decision helps the side with the greatest enthusiasm factor," said William McGinley, an attorney with Patton Boggs and a former general counsel at the NRSC. "You can have the ability to speak, but if you're not motivated to speak, that doesn't mean anything."

"The question is going to be, who is going to step on this battlefield? Who has the motivation to get on the field and play?" McGinley asked.

Kelner said the ruling will not result in major corporations running their own advertising, but he said money will be able to flow more freely to trade associations.

"If people think that individual companies are going to go out and buy ads, there may be some of that, but for the most part companies are going to flow this money through trade groups and other outside groups" he said. "This will open the floodgates for money flowing through groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other associations [that] spend money on political advertising."

"There was always a cloud of doubt around outside groups and trade associations, and this lifts those clouds of doubt and leaves behind clear skies," Kelner said.

Joe Sandler, a former general counsel at the DNC, said the new ads are likely to put even more pressure on incumbents who seek re-election.

"You will see more sharp-edged, candidate-specific ads on the air closer to the election," Sandler said. "That could make it more difficult for incumbents to take tough votes in an election year."

Backers of campaign finance reform criticized the Court and Chief Justice John Roberts, who they said had abandoned pretext of judicial restraint in overturning decades-old precedent. But the ruling, they admitted, was nothing short of a complete loss, even as some disclosure requirements were upheld.

"Today, the Supreme Court majority declared that corporate speech trumps the rights of American voters to government free of corporate corruption," said Paul Ryan. lead counsel at the pro-reform Campaign Legal Center. "The Court has nominally upheld campaign finance disclosure requirements applicable to corporations, but I think time will prove that those disclosure requirements are largely ineffective when dealing with contributions."

Reform backers said they would return to Capitol Hill to seek a legislative fix. Soon after the ruling was announced, DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen and ex-DSCC chair Charles Schumer held a press conference to lay out their options for trying again to eliminate corporate money.

In a statement, current DSCC chair Bob Menendez said Congress "must look at legislative ways to make sure the ledger is not tipped so far for corporate interests that citizens' voices are drowned out."

"This decision was a terrible mistake," added Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), the author of the original legislation. "Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns."

Feingold promised to pass legislation "restoring as many of the critical limits on corporate control of our elections as possible." But, CLC's Ryan admitted, the decision went so far that any immediate solution that would stand up to the Court's scrutiny.

"There's no obvious and easy legislative fix," Ryan said.