Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits

[MaNiC]

The Associated Press | 21 Jan 2010 | 10:33 AM ET

The Supreme Court struck down Thursday long-standing limits on corporate spending in U.S. political campaigns, such as this year's congressional races and the 2012 presidential contest.

The 5-4 ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration and the campaign finance law's supporters who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system to promote or defeat candidates.

The ruling by the conservative majority transformed the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in future presidential and congressional elections, which already have broken new spending records with each political cycle.

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights. "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.

The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.

The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented.

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

Source: CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/34974502)

Sound off.

[Nano]

The only thing that can be said about the Supreme Court on either side is that both are wrong about their decisions. The constitution was only intended to apply to real living entities as so far as their rights go and how they pertain to them. Corporations have a freedom of speech as far as actually speaking goes, but the power to speak in terms of as a person with his or her money into politics is not applicable in my view to a non-living entity of this country. The founders did not intend it to extend it to such a degree as to non-living persons. There simply was no need to since it is the individual living person's right that was being safe guarded not the bottom line of a lifeless entity. The original intent/purpose was entirely missed by the gifted on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is obviously bought and owned by special interests not actual adherence to the U.S. Constitution and most importantly intent of it.


In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." The integrity of elected institutions have long been jeopardized no thanks to the Supreme Court. In other words what country have they been living in all this time. There is no integrity in elected institutions as a rule of thumb until proven otherwise.

[GregHJ]

This is quite possibly the stupidest blunder the Supreme Court has made in recent history, if not the entire history of the institution. Corporations are not people, they are governmental creations whose sole purpose is to operate within an economic system. The conservative justices wrongly thought this case was about free speech, it was about the use of money in order to influence. Money isn't speech. The only Supreme Court has unwittingly played into the hands of the corporate interests who will now use this ruling to pour money into candidates they support while using it to bury others. For example, a candidate who wants more environmental regulation and seeks to make corporations clean up the environment will have to contend with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ads and other "propaganda" from corporations like GE who oppose such regulations. If U.S. elections weren't under the thumb of corporate interests before they certainly are now.

[Ordie]

Sad day for America.

[TheSteve]

Corporations are people too!

[JPBaz]

Based on this ruling we may see government "of the people, by the people and for the people" perish from this Earth. Congratulations to the Republican Party and the Tea Baggers, looks like the Bush legacy is going to pay off for you big time.

[LineDoggie]

Thanks dude, I'm hoping for a Cabinet Position.

[JPBaz]

Thanks dude, I'm hoping for a Cabinet Position.

+1

You can always hope, but with the new rules it may require you to contribute a bit more cash to make it happen. :lol:

The prospect of unlimited corporate contributions kind of reminds me of the world in original Roller Ball movie with James Caan. I don't think it is a good thing for any regular American, Rep or Dem, in the long run.

[Laconian]

All this ruling says is that corporations can use their corporate money for advertisements for candidates. It doesn't allow for corporate contributions to individuals. There are very wealthy democrat (liberal) minded corporations that can use their money (if the shareholders don't mind) to advertise for candidates the same way very wealthy republican (conservative) corporations can advertise for their candidates the same way unions advertised for their candidates.

Guess what? You're not taking money, power or influence out of politics. Just because some corporation advertises for somebody doesn't mean you have to vote for them.

[JPBaz]

I think that it is a question of scale. You are correct in stating that Unions and Corporations can not contribute to individuals. There will be no limit on political advertisements or supporting other interest groups. Money and politics go hand in hand. The issue is that politicians will realize that opposing corporate interests could bring in huge money for attack adds and support for their opponents. These ads do work. One of the commentators today spoke about the Louisville media market. Apparently there is only one major TV outlet for most of the state. A well financed corporate PAC could afford to buy up all of the available media time. No media time = no message = no chance= don't piss off the corporations. I may not have to vote for the corporate candidate but I fear that given the state of attack ads in our modern media society, most of us may never get a chance to hear both sides. The 3rd party ads have always been the most aggressive and most likely to obscure the truth. Attack ads can disillusion the electorate and depress voting, a death knell for our society. As much as I HATE the fact that Brown won in Massachusetts, I will always respect the huge number of folks that came out in the snow to vote (even though I told that Brown supporter trying to sway me to F off).

Like you said, there are some successful liberal companies out there but I would guess that there are more companies that are focused on their stockholders and profits first. Union contributions may be significant but I am not so sure I want the government swayed anymore by that voting block either. Many of the pundits admit that this ruling will directly help the Republican Party. The last election saw huge contributions from the little people. The largest companies in the US could easily outpace this. Based on this ruling I would say that Unions just found a new lease on life, they will play a huge role supporting rank and file issues on the national stage.

If you ask me, I would rather see the little people who most of the living, dieing and buying in our society have the advantage when it comes to supporting and influencing politicians. Corporations and Unions are not people, they cant vote and are not guaranteed 1st Amendment rights to influence the political system. The stockholders (if they are US Citizens) and Union members already get one vote each, that should be enough.

[Laconian]

This last election (and others no doubt) also saw employers (both democrat and republican) having employees make contributions to candidates with company funds and made in the employees names to hide where the money came from. This way at least, I hope, the ad supporting candidate A paid for by company B is a little more above board.

[Castlegrade]

The majority opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Wasn't there widespread use of "527" PACs to get around this law?

[Clockwinder]

Politics - if it wasn't so serious, it'd be laughable. Get rid of the middle men and just let business run the country. They couldn't do any worse. Think of the money we'd save.

[msnger]

What were the other half thinking! Well at least it took them two hundred something odd years to destroy the integrity of this damn country.

[Wimbly]

The 3 branches of the US gov. are supposed to be co-equal. The court is there to ensure that the congress does not violate the constitution - the document that is above them all.

Simply this, the congress wrote a law that violated the constitution and the court called it. The law was very badly written. The court has in effect restored free speech. If congress and the people want such a law it must be redone in a way that does not violate the constitution, or pass an amendment.