Supreme Court Decision Opens Elections to More Corporate Spending Posted: January 22, 2010 In a split 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said that corporations have the same First Amendment rights to free speech as individuals when it comes to the election process, overturning decades of limits on how much money corporations and labor unions can spend on campaign ads.

On January 21, the Supreme Court held a special session to announce its decision to lift long-standing campaign finance restrictions. The ruling will make it easier for organizations to campaign for or against a candidate using broadcast media.

Reaction to the court's decision ran the spectrum. President Obama condemned it. In a statement he warned the result will be a "stampede of special interest money in our politics."

But Republicans generally welcomed the decision. House Minority Leader John Boehner called it a "big win for the First Amendment."

During the 2008 presidential campaigns, Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group that seeks to promote "traditional American values," released "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary was highly critical of Hillary Clinton, who was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) claimed that the film was a violation of campaign finance laws and pulled the plug.

But Citizens United fought this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. The group argued that the right to distribute its movie was protected by the First Amendment's promise of free speech.

Decision weakens McCain-Feingold law

The FEC's decision to prohibit Citizens United's documentary stemmed from the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. Part of McCain-Feingold said ads paid for by corporations or unions that state the name of a candidate would be outlawed within 30 days of a primary or caucus, and within 60 days of a general election.

Congress created the FEC in 1975 to track the money spent in federal elections. Campaign finance laws sought to ensure that wealthy individuals and organizations do not have too much control in a given election.

As an interest group, Citizens United was subject to the McCain-Feingold law. The FEC ruled that "Hillary: The Movie" was essentially a long campaign ad. This wouldn't have been a problem, but the documentary was released on January 15, 2008-- less than a month before "Super Tuesday" when the largest number of states held primary elections -- making it illegal.

Court decides to tackle the big issue The Court could have focused narrowly on the FEC's consitutional right to ban the documentary, but it decided to examine campaign finance rules in general.

The Court's decision strikes down McCain-Feingold's advertising time-frame, as well as a 20-year ban on corporate spending in politics.

Traditionally, organizations had to raise money specifically for political purposes if they wanted to campaign for or against a candidate. This was done through an organization's Political Action Committee (PAC). Under the Court's ruling, corporations and unions may now use general funds to create ads for the candidates of their choice, although they still cannot give directly to a candidate. Direct campaign contributions must still be made through an organization's PAC.

Differing views of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court's decision was split, with the five more conservative justices arguing that the FEC's strict advertising limits restrained free speech in a way that was unconstitutional.

The justices wanted to defend the "open marketplace of ideas," Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal told the NewsHour.

The four more liberal justices wrote a passionate dissent in which Justice John Paul Stevens argued that corporations were not human beings, and that this was a "distinction that was significant in the context of elections, that corporations, their interests may have fundamental conflicts with the interests of the electorate," Coyle explained.

But the "swing vote," moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy equated the old laws to "censorship."

The case boiled down to different interpretations of the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment is about freedom of speech. It's not about freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money. It's that difference that makes our political system a democracy ruled by the people, rather than a plutocracy ruled by money or those who have the most money," Monica Youn from the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law argued on the NewsHour.

"It very well might lead to a lot more spending by corporations and special interest, but that is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to allow. A lot of spending by a lot of different people and groups in an election is called a debate. And that is precisely what the First Amendment protects," countered Steve Simpson, the lead attorney on campaign finance law at the Institute for Justice.

President Obama declared he will work with Congress for a forceful response to the decision, but lawmakers' options are limited now that the Supreme Court has broadly defined corporate and organizational rights to free speech.

------

“Corporations are people, my friend.” - Governor Mitt Romney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

According to the Supreme Court, is the statement below by Governor Romney correct? Why or why not? ______