Thursday
Jan212010
Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits On Corporate Campaign Ads
Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 2:32PM
In what Justice John Paul Stevens called a "radical departure" from earlier law, the Supreme Court today ruled that any campaign finance regulation that treats corporations differently from individual citizens is unconstitutional.
The decision came in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), in which a private corporation tried to produce and broadcast a "documentary" critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary. Under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—also known as McCain-Feingold—any broadcast of the documentary, because it was funded by a corporation, would be illegal within 30 days of the primary.
Justice Kennedy, writing for himself and four other Justices, called the regulation a "ban on political speech," and said that the government "ban[s] political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form." He rejected arguments that had been accepted in Supreme Court precedents that corporations could be regulated more tightly because they had special legal advantages, "such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets." Kennedy quoted Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent from an earlier case, writing that "the State cannot exact as the price of those special advantages the forfeiture of First Amendment rights."
"The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves," Kennedy wrote, adding that "when Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought."
Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent, harshly attacking the bases of the Court's opinion. He pointed out that the law was not an outright ban, as Citizens United could have used PAC funding, aired the ad earlier, or refused contributions from for-profit corporations. He also noted that the Supreme Court has previously upheld speech restrictions on other groups based on their identities, such as students, prisoners, and members of the armed forces. The majority's logic, Stevens wrote, "would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders."
Justice Stevens also criticized the majority for producing a broader decision than was necessary. Citizens United had only asked for a special waiver for its documentary, but the majority chose to take the opportunity to strike down the entire law.
The Court did choose to uphold a provision of the law that required some disclosures when corporations make expenditures. Under the law, campaign ads not made by a candidate must reveal the name of the group that funded it, and any person or corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a single year on campaign ads must make a filing with the FEC listing any individuals who contributed more than $1,000.
This disclosure provision was upheld by eight Justices, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. Justice Thomas cited a right to anonymous speech and expressed concern about retaliation against individual donors, referring to harassment and property damage exacted upon supporters of California's Proposition 8.
The decision came in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), in which a private corporation tried to produce and broadcast a "documentary" critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary. Under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—also known as McCain-Feingold—any broadcast of the documentary, because it was funded by a corporation, would be illegal within 30 days of the primary.
Justice Kennedy, writing for himself and four other Justices, called the regulation a "ban on political speech," and said that the government "ban[s] political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form." He rejected arguments that had been accepted in Supreme Court precedents that corporations could be regulated more tightly because they had special legal advantages, "such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets." Kennedy quoted Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent from an earlier case, writing that "the State cannot exact as the price of those special advantages the forfeiture of First Amendment rights."
"The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves," Kennedy wrote, adding that "when Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought."
Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent, harshly attacking the bases of the Court's opinion. He pointed out that the law was not an outright ban, as Citizens United could have used PAC funding, aired the ad earlier, or refused contributions from for-profit corporations. He also noted that the Supreme Court has previously upheld speech restrictions on other groups based on their identities, such as students, prisoners, and members of the armed forces. The majority's logic, Stevens wrote, "would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders."
Justice Stevens also criticized the majority for producing a broader decision than was necessary. Citizens United had only asked for a special waiver for its documentary, but the majority chose to take the opportunity to strike down the entire law.
The Court did choose to uphold a provision of the law that required some disclosures when corporations make expenditures. Under the law, campaign ads not made by a candidate must reveal the name of the group that funded it, and any person or corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a single year on campaign ads must make a filing with the FEC listing any individuals who contributed more than $1,000.
This disclosure provision was upheld by eight Justices, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. Justice Thomas cited a right to anonymous speech and expressed concern about retaliation against individual donors, referring to harassment and property damage exacted upon supporters of California's Proposition 8.
Reader Comments (3)
To say that a corporation is a person is offensive to me, as a real person. If I commit a crime, I go to jail. How do you jail a corporation? The Supreme Court's decision is treason. The People are officially under attack.
This Supreme Court ruling is worse than anything I expected from the Bush packed court. I can think of few things worse than giving such a privilege to the corporations!
I believe this is extreme but this law has been too open to government control.I believe we should have mostly debates at the end of an election time. This saves money and it keeps the decisions based on debates and arguments rather than advertising. I agree that there may be Republican influence here. However, to blame conservatives is wrong. I am conservative and I don't agree with this move. I believe good debating like in this forum is a good thing. Let's not lump people into groups unless it is justified. I belong to a social network that is conservative at www.heywhateversocial.info and we don't go after power but really try to support others. Plus, it invites healthy debate