Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Laws
Spending Limits on Political Speech Removed
Joshua Divine
Issue date: 1/20/10 Section: News
Last week, the Supreme Court broke from a twenty year-old precedent, ruling that laws banning direct corporate spending on political campaigns were unconstitutional. The Court's long-awaited decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will fundamentally change election law in America.
The decision was split 5-4 along ideological lines. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito formed the majority, with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Sotomayor in dissent. The case was the first heard by Justice Sotomayor and the first argued by Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
As a result of the decision, corporations, labor unions, and other special interest groups will be able to directly finance their own political advertising with no spending limits. Contributions to individual campaigns from corporations will remain illegal.
The decision, written by Justice Kennedy, argues that corporate spending on political advertisements is protected under First Amendment rights to free speech. The extension of full free speech protection to corporate political advertisement remains highly controversial. Justice Stevens, dissenting, argued that the decision "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation." Stevens also accused Chief Justice Roberts of moving far beyond the original scope of the case (which dealt only with more peripheral regulations) to strike down the core of American election law. The majority, Stevens argued, "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."
The decision is a major blow to campaign finance reform advocates in both parties. Senator Feingold, co-author of the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation, which is rendered largely obsolete by the ruling, argued that the decision "was a terrible mistake....Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns."
The precise effects of the ruling are difficult to predict, but a new influx of special interest money in politics appears certain. Corporations are not expected to frequently advertise directly, but rather funnel money to trade organizations like the Chamber of Commerce for advertising efforts. Although both corporations and labor unions are now allowed to air political advertisements, the Republican Party looks to benefit from the decision, as corporate coffers dwarf the monetary resources of labor unions. The White House and key Senate Democrats have vowed to pursue new restraints on corporate political advertisement.
The decision was split 5-4 along ideological lines. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito formed the majority, with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Sotomayor in dissent. The case was the first heard by Justice Sotomayor and the first argued by Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
As a result of the decision, corporations, labor unions, and other special interest groups will be able to directly finance their own political advertising with no spending limits. Contributions to individual campaigns from corporations will remain illegal.
The decision, written by Justice Kennedy, argues that corporate spending on political advertisements is protected under First Amendment rights to free speech. The extension of full free speech protection to corporate political advertisement remains highly controversial. Justice Stevens, dissenting, argued that the decision "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation." Stevens also accused Chief Justice Roberts of moving far beyond the original scope of the case (which dealt only with more peripheral regulations) to strike down the core of American election law. The majority, Stevens argued, "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."
The decision is a major blow to campaign finance reform advocates in both parties. Senator Feingold, co-author of the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation, which is rendered largely obsolete by the ruling, argued that the decision "was a terrible mistake....Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns."
The precise effects of the ruling are difficult to predict, but a new influx of special interest money in politics appears certain. Corporations are not expected to frequently advertise directly, but rather funnel money to trade organizations like the Chamber of Commerce for advertising efforts. Although both corporations and labor unions are now allowed to air political advertisements, the Republican Party looks to benefit from the decision, as corporate coffers dwarf the monetary resources of labor unions. The White House and key Senate Democrats have vowed to pursue new restraints on corporate political advertisement.
Be the first to comment on this story