Change meets its match

Posted at 9:34 AM on January 21, 2010 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Politics

A funny thing happened to the concept of 'reform' in Washington. Health care is headed for the status quo, and now so is the idea of campaign reform.

In the most awaited decision in this term, the Supreme Court ruled this morning that corporations (and unions) may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. Here's the full opinion. Warning: It's 183 pages long.

No surprise here. The court's decision came on a 5-to-4 vote.

But the court did uphold a few provisions of the campaign contribution law. If a corporation spends more than $10,000 a year for a campaign ad, the names and addresses of anyone contributed $1,000 must be revealed.

And the court upheld that provision that requires non-candidate organizations to identify that they are the ones who paid for the ad.

This case stems from an organization called "Citizens United," which produced a "movie" called "Hillary: The movie." But opponents claimed it amounted to a campaign advertisement, and was subject to the expenditure limits. A campaign ad by any other name is still a campaign ad.

The court said "First Amendment standards, however, 'must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.'

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion.

The more liberal wing of the court, headed by Justice John Paul Stevens said, in effect, "nonsense."

Neither Citizens United's nor any other corporation's speech has been "banned." All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

If that sounds like someone criticizing "activist judges," it is.

---

Comments (13)

Corporations should not be given the same rights as individuals.

I'm moving to Norway.

Posted by Tyler | January 21, 2010 10:28 AM

---

I would seriously like to know what characteristics the Court uses to define "person". Here's one suggestion: A person is something that can be punched in the face. Can I punch a corporation in the face? No. Therefore, it is not a person. (If I sound angry, it's because I am.)

But seriously, Norway might be the best option at this point.

As for "change": As much as I hoped Obama could shake things up, I knew deep down that it wouldn't happen. No matter what a candidate says, and no matter how charismatic he/she/it (face it, a corporation could run for office at this point) is, American politics will never change.

Posted by Brian F | January 21, 2010 11:11 AM

---

I'm going to New Orleans and try to forget all about this week in politics. See you there Bob.

Posted by Bonnie | January 21, 2010 11:30 AM

---

hahah activist judges..

Posted by Bobbydole | January 21, 2010 11:37 AM

---

Yet another in a series of decisions that stem from the concept of a corporation as a person. The notion that our current government is of,by and for the people only really seems to apply to the "people" that have the most money, and therefore the most influence.

When corporations are people, real people get the shaft.

Posted by david z | January 21, 2010 11:47 AM

---

Echoing Tyler's sentiment, corporations are neither people nor citizens, and money does not equal speech. This is sad, and just another step towards institutionalizing political power in corporations over people.

Posted by teej | January 21, 2010 1:28 PM

---

We people can boycot corps who contribute to campaigns we don't support. Assuming the contributions are public information.

Posted by Jim!!! | January 21, 2010 4:01 PM

---

We'll get the best deomcracy money can buy. Probably the best justice money can buy to, assuming this also applies to judicial races.

Posted by Al Heebsh | January 21, 2010 4:38 PM

---

This is a wonderful decision.

Corporations are associations comprised of stockholders just like unions are associations comprised of members. Under the old law corps were handcuffed and unions were free to do as they wanted.

Secondly, the left seems to think the electorate is stupid and can't be trusted to understand vigorous debate in a free society.
Free speech means nothing if it isn't applicable to political debate. This is a ruling for freedom.

Posted by Duke Powell | January 21, 2010 5:37 PM

---

\\Secondly, the left seems to think the electorate is stupid and can't be trusted to understand vigorous debate in a free society.

There's plenty of evidence to support this. Further, if piles of money weren't proven to be useful in swaying elections they wouldn't be used.

Posted by Alison | January 21, 2010 8:35 PM

---

I believe both John Kerry and Barack Obama blew off campaign spending limits by refusing public financing.

When Bill Luther was in Washington, they called him "Dollar Bill" because of the amount of time he spent getting campaign cash.

Several commentators on NPR today referred to turning on the spigot. The spigot has been on for years.

Look, I get the possibility that politicians without courage run for the shadows under the threat that big business will target them.

One way that can be prevented is if political reporters stop with the horserace coverage (who really cares how much a gubernatorial candidate raised compared to someone else? ) and worrying about whether someone has been treated for depression, and starts recognizing the cure for all of the ills I heard described with the telling of this story today -- an educated voting public.

That can only be done by reporting on the issues and how the pols are reacting to them, and stop wasting time documenting what stupid thing some congresswoman or ex-governor said today.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 21, 2010 9:20 PM

---

With all due respect to Justice Stevens, whenever one hears someone complaning about activist judges, it usually is a greater reflection on the complainer than the judges.

Activist judgments come in all shapes and sizes. The problem is, when one particular activist judgment comes down, its critics don't.

Posted by JohnnyZoom | January 21, 2010 9:21 PM

---

Well, clearly this decision was an "activist" decision by any definition. They overturned laws passed by elected legislators, including one that they had upheld just six years ago, which is usually how the term is defined.

In fact, not just the decision, but the process was "activist" in the sense that the majority used the case supposedly at issue (some documentary about Hillary Clinton) to overturn laws that weren't even part of the brief. They did this last year in Gross v FBL Financial Services.

Yeah, I agree that the way "activist" is used in political discourse basically just means "any ruling I don't like," but that doesn't mean there also aren't objective criteria you can use to see if something actually meets the description. If this decision isn't activist, nothing is.

Posted by Chris | January 21, 2010 11:18 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories