SCOTUS Wipes Out McCain-Feingold Provisions
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down some key provisions of landmark campaign finance legislation in a move experts agree paves the way for more corporate money to enter the political system.
In a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court's majority threw out sections of the legislation that bans corporations and labor unions from funding some political advertisements. Corporations and unions may fund those communications out of their general treasuries, overturning earlier rulings that had divided individual and corporate expenditures into different categories.
It is a major win for opponents of campaign finance reform legislation passed earlier this decade.
The case stemmed from a movie critical of then-pres. candidate Hillary Clinton, which the FEC said violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold. The FEC argued the movie violated section 203 of BCRA, which prohibits corporations and unions from using non-PAC money in ads that mention a candidate for office, and sections 201 and 311, which set up disclosure requirements.
Reform advocates were disheartened when the Court refused to rule on the case last term, when it was originally argued. Instead, justices asked for a rehearing in order to consider whether the Court should overrule two previously settled cases as well. Those cases, McConnell v. FEC and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, were victories for reformers -- victories that were snatched away today.
On Wednesday, the Court overturned Austin, as well as a part of McConnell that placed restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the other 4 more conservative judges on the Court. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a 90-page dissent joined by the Court's other 3 liberal justices.
The Court cited the First Amendment and an overbearing FEC as primary reasons for overturning the McCain-Feingold legislation.
The FEC's "regulatory scheme may not be a prior restrain on speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speakers are not compelled by law to seek an advisory opinion from the FEC before the speech takes place," Kennedy wrote. "As a practical matter, however, given the complex-ity of the regulations and the deference courts show toadministrative determinations, a speaker who wants toavoid threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a govern-mental agency for prior permission to speak."
"The FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, theymust either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question," Kennedy continued. "Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprece-dented governmental intervention into the realm of speech."
Writing in dissent, Stevens called allowing for-profit corporations to spend money on electioneering communications "misguided."
"The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the politicalsphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case," Stevens wrote. "The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrityof elected institutions across the Nation."
Meanwhile, Stevens said the ruling did not hew to the Court's traditional respect for previously settled law. "The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty."
Check Hotline OnCall throughout the day as we hear from top election law experts on the fallout from a case that could dramatically alter the American electoral landscape.
It's no longer ironic that the so-called "liberal" justices on the SCOTUS voted against the First Amendment. Modern "liberalism" has wandered so far off the reservation of classic liberalism as to be nothing more than simply radical statism nowadays.
Maybe now we bypass the middlemen and just let the corporations elect themselves as our president, senators and representatives.
So in a few years the cry will be "don't blame me, I voted for Microsoft."
The biggest campaign reform should be not giving politicians the power that attracts huge corporations.
I see no reason why I should not be able to contribute everything I have to someone I think would make a great candidate, if a third generation department store mogul can fund their own elections with ten of millions of dollars or more.
Remove all restrictions but make everything public in realtime.
Only Republicans and Teabaggers are celebrating the corporate control of politics.
And they want to throw all the bums out? Who do they think will take the "bums" place now that corporations can fund campaigns? CORPORATE CANDIDATES.
And guess what CORPORATE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT is called:
FASCISM.
Thanks GOP, thanks Chief Justice Roberts, thanks for preserving and protecting corporate rights over the General Good of the country. Unbelievable.
This is a great decision. Mc Cain -Feingold was a broad exercise in attempting to restrict First Amendment rights. The unintended consequence was to empower the rich, who are allowed to fund their own campaigns, while restricting the middle class who have so many impediments put in their way when they try to get together to pool their funds that there is a real chill put on the endeavors of middle class Americans to exercise political clout. This DVD movie, was an attempt by not rich people to have their say and was Restricted. And yes, it was a corporation because they intended to sell the DVD. By the way, if the FEC ever tried to restrict the sale of a book---wow! The liberal rage would be intense. Unless it was a conservative book. Three cheers for the conservative majority
Sure, Susan.
Unlimited corporate funding of political campaigns will help the middle class?
Incredible that someone would be so thoroughly deluded.
Ethan, I think your definition of Fascism is backwards. It's not control of government by corporations, it's control of corporations by government. Kind of what the current administration is attempting.
Susan, spot on. Now the small guy can have a bigger voice in this thing while the rich don't have to go on funding 503b tax exempt entities to get around McCain-Feingold.
Walter,
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." — Franklin D. Roosevelt
By your definition, ALL anti-trust laws and ALL government regulation of commerce are fascist.
That is so obviously contradictory of the founding principles of our country that it is downright laughable.
Not like you'd care enough to know.
"Now the small guy can have a bigger voice in this thing"
Maybe you can explain for us, Walter, why allowing UNLIMITED CORPORATE FUNDING -- think oil/energy multinationals, insurance industry, big agriculture -- in political campaigns is helping "the small guy".
The Republican Party is totally delusional it's scary.
Ethan, as I said earlier, Susan's comment was spot on. The original suit that lead to the SCOTUS case was brought by a group trying to field a film about Hillary during the 2008 campaign. That film was funded by "small guys". Think about how Soros and other multi billionaires, from both sides of the aisle, are able to skirt campaign finance restrictions (read 503b entities) not really available to the "small guy". Money always wins in that regard.
I've always thought McCain-Feingold was put in place by large corporations and large moneyed interests in order to squeeze the little guy out.
But in defense of moneyed interests, Ethan, please tell me how many people are employeed by the "small guy". And we could do without ad hominem attacks on commentators that may not necessarily share your views.
Actually the Court has ruled that government may not suppress free speech by corporations and independent groups especially prior to the 30 days of the primary and overturns three stare decisis cases that concluded the opposite way.
However the Court has upheld the right of the government to regulate corporate speech by disclosure and disclaimer provisions which Citizen's United tried to throw out.
Even with this, the 503b tax exempt entities will still be funded because it allows them to skirt the law not disclosing the donors funding it.
Walter, the definition of fascism is
a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system. It is incorrect that the current administration was attempting to do so because many of these companies put themselves in that place by their own management's mistakes and needed help temporarily. It still support private enterprise within limits. Many of the people who made the decision supports that assessment contrary to what the conservatives argued.
Walter
Actually Feingold-McCain was put in place to limit the influence of the large corporations or interest not what you argued the little guy being squeezed out. Several court decisions bears this out.
Gee Walter, thanks for not answering my question.
Imagine unlimited political spending by: ExxonMobil, UnitedHealth, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc...
It is truly disgusting. Even WORSE that you defend corporate influence over politics, but can't even ADMIT that there might be undue influence. SHAME ON YOU.
"And we could do without ad hominem attacks"
You're a corporate fascist A$$HOLE who is cheering the utter destruction of our country. Howdya like that for ad hominem, you arrogant scumbag POS?
Keep on defending those "moneyed interests" you corrupt anti-American jackoff.
James, your definition of fascism is not inconsistent with my original post, which was directed at who controls who. Ethan postulated the corporations controlled the government. I disagreed as I don't think Hitler ever took directions from Krupp. Or Mussolini from the Italian corporate heads. To name two well known and recent fascists.
On McCain-Feingold, I don't disagree with your take. That WAS the stated purpose. My question is was that the actual effect. One other thought on M-F. Any time political speech is repressed by the political class, the political class is picking losers in the debate.
I'd be more in favor of letting anyone, I mean ANYONE, saying what they want, but with the stipulation that the funding must be revealed, i.e. transparent. Violate that and go to jail. Not fines. JAIL. Not country club jail, but someplace where the guilty would do hard time. With reporting, opponents could ferret out identities and report them to the electorate. Let the great unwashed masses decide who is right and who is wrong. Jefferson couldn't have been more right in that regard.
Walter,
Like a true Republican YOU made a statement, but don't have the intellectual capacity or intellectual honesty to answer a simple question:
Maybe you can explain for us, Walter, why allowing UNLIMITED CORPORATE FUNDING in political campaigns is helping "the small guy".
Actually, you never responded to my assertion either:
By your definition, ALL anti-trust laws and ALL government regulation of commerce are fascist.
So... ya know... you can say whatever you want, but you're just another lying Right-wing extremist scumbag prick who is cheering this country's failure. Thanks for nothing a$$hole.
ethan,
what are you four?
I enjoyed the article and thanks respecting posting such valuable info seeing that all of us to turn, I be the horse's mouth up it both profitable and instructive and I organize to pass into the open zephyr it as again as I can.
ray ban 3025
Thank you for sharing the link - but sadly it seems to be down? Does anybody have a mirror or perhaps an additional source?