U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Limits

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, in pertinent part, the following: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

In a major boost for the First Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that government may not limit or ban "independent" spending by corporations for political campaigns and elections. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee) While there is still a limit on direct contributions to political campaigns, corporations may now use unlimited funds to run their own ads. And they will not be restricted by the McCain-Feingold time limits which prohibit use of corporate general funds 30 days before a Presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.

In decrying the decision, and playing to his usual class-warfare theme, President Obama said 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."

So let's think about what the President says. First, never a believer in free enterprise and capitalism, he demonizes big business. It does not matter that these businesses provide millions of jobs. Next, he talks about how these corporations "marshal their power" in Washington. Is he really suggesting that the average American had the same access to politicians that the wealthy and big corporations had BEFORE this decision? How about all those $10,000. a plate fund- raisers politicians regularly hold. "Everyday Americans" attending those Mr. President? Real access is gained with big contributions.

So then what is the problem with the Court's decision that has politicians (mostly dems) in an uproar? It is not that vast sums of money will be flowing into political campaigns. That happens now. It is that the politicians will no longer be able to CONTROL how that money is spent. When the money goes directly into their campaigns, the candidates and their campaign directors can decide how to spend it. Now, there is no limit on corporate spending as long as it is an "independent expenditure" not coordinated with any candidate. And therein lies the rub. Even favorable ads may not focus on the issue(s) the candidates want to focus on. And attack ads on their opponents may not have the tone or content that the candidates prefer.

So on the one hand, you have the interest of political candidates wanting complete control over their own campaigns and messages; and on the other you have the First Amendment. In explaining why the First Amendment must prevail, Justice Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

The New York Times was fuming over the decision. In their 1/22/10 lead editorial they wrote: "It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs (corporations) have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." I think the NY Times is on to something. What right do any of the following artificial legal constructs have to political speech: The NY Times Corp., NBC/Universal, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Tribune Co., The Washington Post Co., and on and on. Or do only those corporations that own media outlets have a right to political speech?

The NY Times bemoans the fact that while labor unions will also be free to spend their money, the unions have far less to spend than corporations. The inference is less influence by the unions. So here's a question: how did the unions manage to get their special exemption on taxes on "cadillac" healthcare plans that corporations did not get under the Senate version of Obamacare?

In anticipation of what he thought might be an "unfavorable" decision, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has been working on legislation to limit the impact of the court's decision. So I would ask Mr. Schumer if he refuses to accept campaign contributions from these evil corporations. Apparently not. According to one google site, the top five industries contributing to his campaign from 2005 to 2010 are as follows: Securities and Investments (over 1 million), Lawyers (over $830,000), Real Estate (over $587,000), Misc. Finance (over $280,000), and Insurance (over $197,000). And what committees does Senator Schumer sit on? Banking, Finance and Judiciary. Matches up pretty nicely with his top contributors. But their money was just fine - as long as it went into the Senator's campaign coffers to use as he saw fit.