This happened late last week, but it’s interesting to collect various takes on the issue. So I have one from the left, one from the right, and then my own.
We’ll begin with Mitch Stewart of Organizing For Against America. I did a little bit of paring to get rid of the links.
(Last Thursday) morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.
It’s a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.
While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.
Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.
(snip)
The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn’t buy “issue ads” — which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates — in the closing days of campaigns.
The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.
With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans — and Republicans seem ecstatic.
While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy — and we need to show that the American people stand with him. (All emphasis in original.)
On the other hand, Bill Wilson and the folks at Americans for Limited Government were much more pleased:
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson (Thursday) praised the Supreme Court for overturning key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign restrictions, calling the decision “a decisive victory for the First Amendment, free speech, and open and fair elections.”
“The Roberts Court will go down as the greatest defender of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it,” Wilson declared, calling the overturned restrictions “censorship.”
(snip)
According to the majority ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Limits on independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”
“Under this ruling, corporate entity restrictions on political campaigning have thankfully been overturned, as they have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Wilson.
Wilson also condemned Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling the decision “un-American.”
“Chuck Schumer needs to have his head examined,” Wilson said, adding, “the First Amendment was upheld in this case. It doesn’t get any more American than that.”
In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled against provisions that restricted Citizens United from broadcasting a movie it developed, Hillary: The Movie, that was supposed to air during the 2008 Democratic Primary. In particular, the court ruled that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by a corporation is a violation of the First Amendment.
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.
(snip)
Wilson said that the ruling “could set a template for groups to unhinge unconstitutional restrictions in the future through pre-enforcement challenges.”
Their release was actually much longer and featured commentary by their legal counsel, but you get the picture.
The aspect of McCain-Feingold which most gave it the perception as an “incumbent protection plan” was the artificial restriction on certain political advertisements 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, which is generally the timeframe people begin to pay attention to the campaigns. (A 60 day period in a normal general election cycle begins roughly around Labor Day, the time conventional wisdom holds that the campaign begins in earnest.)
But the Supreme Court decision seems to indicate that the Citizens United case couldn’t be properly resolved without sweeping away other related precedent the majority found incompatible with the First Amendment guarantee on free speech. I tend to agree with that approach because when a decision is made, it’s far better to err on the side of freedom than it is to be overly restrictive. Could corporations abuse their newfound power? Perhaps, but it bears repeating that the final arbiter of their success will be the people who vote and elect leaders.
It’s also worth pointing out that unions, who typically side with Democrats on political issues, also had their ban lifted as well. Those special interests as well as trial lawyers, environmental groups, and other pro-statist advocates simply get competition from the corporate world now – and there’s no guarantee corporate interests will automatically favor Republicans. Democrats who assist in corporate rentseeking efforts won’t be the target of negative ads from corporations, and the states which do allow direct corporate contributions to campaigns don’t seem to have any greater number of problems because of that.
Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. Instead of having legislation arbitrarily decide who gets to express their point of view and who doesn’t, it is now up to us to be more informed about who is backing candidates and why. Any journalist worth his or her salt is certain to point out that the favorable ads from corporation X are backing candidate A, and undoubtedly once word of that gets out environmentalist group Y will respond by bashing both the corporation and the candidate, throwing their support behind their favored candidate B.
With the $1 billion-plus spent on the Presidential campaign in 2008 it’s obvious that the stated McCain-Feingold goal of getting money out of politics has failed miserably. So why not try the novel approach of getting money out of government and lessening the incentive for special interests to interfere?
I actually saw whereby some on the left want to prosecute the 5 SCOTUS that voted for this. As if they think they own the Supreme Court.