CE Week #2: “Supreme Court reviewing corporate campaigning” Sept. 10th
Justices could overturn finance restrictions
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc sounded poised Wednesday to strike down on free speech grounds a 100-year-old ban against corporations spending large amounts of money to elect or defeat congressional and presidential candidates.
If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010. Big companies and industries – and possibly unions as well – could fund campaign ads to support or defeat members of Congress.
Since 1907, federal law has prohibited corporations from giving money to candidates. And since 1947, corporations and unions have been barred from spending money on their own to urge voters to elect or defeat federal candidates. Corporate executives, as individuals, can contribute money to a corporate political action committee or PAC, but these amounts are relatively modest compared to the funds available to the corporate treasury.
At least 24 states have similar bans on corporate spending in state races.
All those spending limits have come under growing legal attack from conservatives and libertarians who say the government should not be allowed to set limits on campaign spending and electioneering, even when corporate or union money is in play.
Three justices – Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas – have already said they would overrule past decisions that had upheld federal and state restrictions on corporate election spending. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also have said they favor free speech over the campaign funding limits. But they have not yet said whether they would go along and give corporations a free speech right to spend on campaign ads.
That was the issue before the court Wednesday. It was a rare re-argument in a seemingly narrow case of a small nonprofit group called Citizens United. It had produced a video called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was designed to undercut Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 campaign for the presidency. However, it got tied up in a legal battle with the Federal Election Commission.
Because Citizens United is incorporated and received a small amount of corporate money, the group and its movie came under FEC regulation. Any amount of corporate money can trigger regulatory action under the election laws.
In March, the justices debated whether the law should apply to a nonprofit group that produced a campaign-related video. But rather than decide that narrow question, the justices said in June they would focus instead on whether to say that all corporations, like individuals, have a right to spend freely to elect or defeat candidates.
Washington lawyer Ted Olson, the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, pressed the justices to rule broadly. “Corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment,” said Olson, who represented Citizens United.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., co-sponsors of the 2002 campaign funding law, were in the courtroom and listened intently to the 90-minute argument. The ruling could strike down part of the McCain-Feingold Act that restricted corporate and union-funded election ads in the months before the election.
The court will meet behind closed doors later this week to vote on the case. A decision could come within a few months.
A. I didn’t know corporations couldn’t help campaigns. I never put much thought into it really either. I am a little surprised the courts want to over rule this federal law, but then again people really want their freedom of speech! I’m sure if corporations did give money to campaigns they supported I would have noticed.
B. I think corporations should stay out of elections. Candidates will start to campaign to them instead of the citizens. They will want to win over the companies instead of the people and business will be the main focus instead of the people of America, in my opinion. Candidates should make their own campaign and do their own advertising. Every time I buy gas or go to the store I don’t want to have a particular candidate always right in my face or someone telling me to vote for them.
C. What I want to know. I want to know how other people feel about this. We buy merchandise from corporations, which means we give them money, and then they will use it to advertise for a campaign. If the company wants to help the government somehow, shouldn’t they use the money to help the national debt instead of printing a bunch of little fliers that go in peoples yards or a colored picture of a candidate’s face on the back of a box of food?
A. What did you learn by reading this post?
I had heard of these laws before, but I didn’t realize that they were in place since the early 20th century.
B. What do you think about this particular issue or topic?
This is a topic I am not very educated in, so my opinions are relatively basic. However, the whole time I was reading Savage’s article, I kept hearing, “Election 2012 brought to you by Pepsi™”. I find it disgusting that if a person or a corporation has enough money, they think they can overpower the citizens of the United States, its system of checks and balances, and a basic code of being a decent human being. Oh wait – I’m sorry, I wouldn’t want to take these people’s right to free speech away. My bad, guys.
My opinion is that we already give most politicians a limit on money they can use to campaign, so allowing corporations and unions to add more than their volunteer support isn’t right.
C. What do want to know more about related to this topic?
I still don’t fully understand these laws, and I would love for somebody to explain to me what they are and what they do. Who knows? My opinion might change
A. After reading this article, I learned that corporations could not fund campaigns to help political campaigns. This is a little surprising to me. I don’t know the exact numbers, but a large sum of money goes into campaigns, especially Presidential campaigns. Exactly where all the money comes from, I do not know.
B. Okay. So I feel very strongly about the amount of money Presidential candidates are willing to spend in order to be elected. If they were true politicians and cared about our country, they would take that money and spend it on less selfish things than billboards of their face or videos of how they feel. If they really wanted to make a point, they could out smart their opponent opposed to out spending their opponent. I mean come on now, in 2008 McCain and Obama spent a record 2.4 billion dollars on their campaigns. (According to Center for Responsive Politics) This issue needs to be addressed. It shocks me that the government wants large corporations to help fund these campaigns. I mean we are already in an economic downfall as a country and allowing other companies to help fund political campaigns not only ruins the integrity of a campaign but also wastes money. Now the only thing I have to say is that if it takes one billion dollars for you to win over America, that’s one sad campaign. That money has so many better places to be spent than on billboards, press conferences, interviews, videos, and behind the scenes campaigning. Instead of allowing large corporations to join in, we should be limiting what politicians can spend.
C. I would like to know the benefits of allowing large corporations to donate to political campaigns.
A. I learned more about the laws regarding corporate involvement in elections and campaigns. I didn’t actually know much about the laws restricting corporate funding, and I definitely didn’t know about the possible overturning of the court decisions that set those limits.
B. I think this is an interesting topic. While I think that large corporations already have a dangerous amount of power in this country, and I am personally glad that there are restrictions on how they can influence candidates and political campaigns, the argument against my stance is also reasonable. The constitution does clearly lay out peoples’ right to support any candidate or political party that they want to, through the freedom of speech. Most of the time, I would not argue against a constitutional right. But in this case, I think keeping corporations as far away from politics as possible is in the best interest of the people.
C. I would like to know more about these laws, and how often they have been changed or challenged. I’m surprised that they’ve been around for as long as they have when there is such a seemingly strong legal case against them. Who originally passed these laws back in 1907?
In response to Valerie Nauditt:
Response Part A
First of all, Valerie, I understand where you’re coming from when you say that “the only thing I have to say is that if it takes one billion dollars for you to win over America, that’s one sad campaign.” I agree and disagree. It is sick, but it is not entirely the fault of the politicians. Consumer America demands advertising in order to appease its materialistic addiction; we are most intrigued by clever slogans and aesthetically pleasing propaganda. We are both victims and predators in a world of 30-foot billboards and audience targeted promo commercials in between “The Hills” and “Real World: Cancun”. Not many people can deny their captivation by Obama’s stylized posters. They were modern and hip. He got us? Right. That was my initial reaction, albeit dramatized. Enraptured by his image, the image he spent greens to obtain, I pushed his ideas. Thus, in effect, I pushed consumerism. I am not going to assume you did the same, but I can guarantee you that I’m not alone in my materialistic vice. And the reason a politician would accept money from a large corporation is in hopes that the particular politician will prove successful in his campaign, and proceed to provide “ties” and a “good name” for them. At least, that’s what I think.
In response to Kelli Davin-
I agree that if corporations began supporting political candidates that they might start to campaign to the corporations. I believe it’s important that candidates remained focused on all citizens and not just corporation. However, corporations are people too when you think about it. The chairmen and CEO’s of these companies are people and if they choose to spend their money towards campaigning for a candidate they have a right to. These are private companies who are protected by the constitution. The government shouldn’t have any right to tell them they can’t support political candidates if they want to. I don’t think that the candidates would completely ignore the citizens, though. When you think about it, there are a lot more citizens than there are corporate employees, if these candidates want to win they’re going to need the citizens votes as well and ignoring us isn’t going to help.