Yesterday the Supreme Court released its decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (183 pages). I confess that time constraints--I am working hard on research for my next book, aiming for release a year from now--restricted me to reading the 7-page Syllabus. Thus while I can analyze the overall ruling, I cannot discuss positions taken by individual Justices in their opinions, authored or signed onto. This case was argued Sept. 9, 2009, the first case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat on the bench.
Noteworthy in the Court's ruling as summarized in the Syllabus:
1. The Court issued a broader ruling than it might have chosen to do, holding the laws not merely unconstitutional as applied in the particular case before it (a movie DVD about Hillary), but declaring federal restrictions on corporate speech unconstitutional on their face--legalese for throwing out the pertinent parts of the statute entirely. Parts of the McCain-Feingpld campaign finance law are thus no longer operative, and several earlier Supreme Court rulings were overruled. The Court justified this by noting that to do so would chill free political speech, and undermine the central purpose of First Amendment freedom of speech.
2. The Court refused to distinguish the level of Constitutional free-speech protection given media versus non-media corporations.
3.. The Court formally concluded that "independent expenditures"--those made unconnected to any candidate campaign--"do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." The Court noted that campaign finance limits are easily circumvented and thus not effective.
4. The Court declined to apply stare decisis--legal Latin for "Let the decision stand"--principles, because none of the four justifications for applying the rule are present in this case. Its four criteria are: workability, antiquity, reliance interests (positions taken by parties based upon existing precedent, and harm to parties from changing precedent) and soundness of reasoning in prior cases.
5. The Court upheld disclaimer and disclosure requirements, and rejected Citizens United's argument that its supporters faced threats of harassment, of which, the Court held, no real evidence existed.
President Obama issued this statement yesterday:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
The statement is odd, because President 44 has networked with little else besides big power players in his first year in office. As for getting Congress to work on this do not bet on it. The Court's ruling is based not upon interpretation of federal statutes, which Congress can easily reverse; rather it is based upon the Court's First Amendment interpretation, which is broad enough so that drafting a federal law that will pass the Court's new corporate speech standard will be a daunting task.
Bottom Line. The Citizens United case is clearly a milestone in the contest between free speech versus campaign finance laws. The Court no longer believes assertions about the power of corporations to corrupt the political process, nor does it see reason to accord superior protection to speech by media versus non-media corporations. Coincident with the Court's ruling is the arrival of Scott Brown in Washington to meet with his future Senate colleagues. Brown campaigned in his pick-up truck and shook hands with voters outside Fenway Park, while loser Martha Coakley went to Washington a week before the election to consort with Big Pharma lobbyists. Above all, the Court now clearly sees how today's vast, diverse 24/7 media environment and millions of online Internet donation dollars has reshaped the political campaign landscape, making their justifications for restricting corporate speech untenable.
It is nice to see the Supremes getting a Big One right.
Comments