FACEBOOK
TWITTER
McCain-Feingold Gutted by Court: Big Business Elated
Update: AP: Obama promises ‘forceful response’ to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance. — The military-industrial complex and Big Pharma found a friend in the U.S. Supreme Court. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205), the Court’s decision, as the Brennan Center for Justice observes, “hands unprecedented power to big business, and may provoke the most drastic shift in American politics in more than a decade.”
Justices Stevens, Gingsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor issued a 90-page dissent, in academically scathing tone that can be read as accusing the Republican majority on the Court as being ultra-activist, intellectually dishonest and outrageous in overruling 100-year-old statues banning for-profit corporations funding (in an unlimited manner) their favored candidates. [A stunning decision, but no serious Court observer ever accused Chief Justice John Roberts as not acting in the best interests of the Republican Party and its priorities.] Writes Justice Stevens:
The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. …
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. …
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty … . Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life … .
The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.
The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. …
[T]he majority thus posits a future in which novel First Amendment standards must be devised on an ad hoc basis, and then leaps from this unfounded prediction to the unfounded conclusion that such complexity counsels the abandonment of all normal restraint. Yet it is a pervasive feature of regulatory systems that unanticipated events, such as new technologies, may raise some unanticipated difficulties at the margins. The fluid nature of electioneering communications does not make this case special. The fact that a Court can hypothesize situations in which a statute might, at some point down the line, pose some unforeseen as-applied problems, does not come close to meeting the standard for a facial challenge. [A facial challenge to legislative Acts are the most difficult challenges to mount as it must be established that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be Constitutional." United States v. Salerno] … .
Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=11359
Posted by Yanira Farray on Jan 21 2010, Filed under Economy, Legislation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
I take it Mr. Leon and all the liberal groups screaming about this decision have never heard of, or read, the First Amendment of the Constitution. The government has no constitutional business or right telling this or that company or group how much it can spend on election campaigns. If a company, or a union, wants to buy a zillion dollars in TV ads, that’s its right and business. Campaign donations are a form of political speech. If hundreds of thousands of invidiual citizens who want handouts from the government can pool their money into millions for campaign ads, then companies that stand to suffer the brunt of the new taxes to pay for those additional handouts should be able to voice their views in ads as well.
As for the Brennan Center for Justice’s comment that the decision “hands unprecedented power to big business,” that is just silly. What the decision does is start to undo the unconstitutional limits on political speech that the government has been imposing for years and takes us a step closer back to free market of political speech that we had in America for nearly two centuries.
And the ruling doesn’t just benefit “big business,” it also benefits labor unions and nonprofit groups, as even CNN acknowledges: “The Supreme Court has given big business, unions, and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections. . . .”
[...] McCain-Feingold Gutted By Court: Big Business Elated : Veterans TodayIn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205), the Court’s decision, as the Brennan Center for Justice observes, “hands unprecedented power to big business, and may… [...]
You might wish to read the opinion (especially the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens).
–
The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. …
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. …
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty … . Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life … .
The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.
The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. …
[T]he majority thus posits a future in which novel First Amendment standards must be devised on an ad hoc basis, and then leaps from this unfounded prediction to the unfounded conclusion that such complexity counsels the abandonment of all normal restraint. Yet it is a pervasive feature of regulatory systems that unanticipated events, such as new technologies, may raise some unanticipated difficulties at the margins. The fluid nature of electioneering communications does not make this case special. The fact that a Court can hypothesize situations in which a statute might, at some point down the line, pose some unforeseen as-applied problems, does not come close to meeting the standard for a facial challenge.
#
WOW, Mike Griffith sure showed just HOW BAD it could become. THINK ! I, a Nationally Known Vietnam Veteran want to place an ad on TV showing the people of America they are branding veterans with SECRET numbers, stabbing us in the back, stealing BILLIONS of DOLLARS from the Vets Benefits Administration and ask them to NOT appoint lawyers to sit behind the bench, nor to vote for them. ARTICLE III, Section 1 does NOT say lawyer or attorney. WHY I CAN’T DO THIS ? I DON’T HAVE THE MONEY, I AM NOT RICH, I CANNOT GET MONEY FROM VETS ORGANIZATIONS AS THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE MONEY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. Geez Mike, there are 2 sides to every coin. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DONATE $750,000.00 so I can advertise during the SUPER BOWL with my political statement of systematic elimination ??? Shoot MIKE, the multi-million dollar newsmedia, owned by BIG CORPORATIONS will not say anything about this systematic elimination of AMERICA’S VETERANS. WE THE PEOPLE, MIKE. Not we the corporations. It ain’t hard !!!!!!!!
[...] McCain-Feingold Gutted by Court: Big Business Elated : Veterans Today4 hours ago by Michael Leon McCain-Feingold Gutted by Court: Big Business Elated. January 21, 2010 by Michael Leon · Leave a Comment. The military-industrial complex and Big Pharma found a friend in the U.S. Supreme Court. In Citizens United v. … Veterans Today – http://www.veteranstoday.com/ [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cedar Creek Capital, Cedar Creek Capital. Cedar Creek Capital said: McCain-Feingold Gutted by Court: Big Business Elated: Writes Justice Stevens: The real issue in this case concerns… http://bit.ly/5Yv8RY [...]