Supreme Court decimates McCain-Feingold campaign finance law; Update: Citizens United reacts to victory
Many of you may remember a scathing documentary by Citizens United about Hillary Clinton from 2007. I blogged about it at the time here.
The film became the center of a huge legal battle over the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance scheme.
Parts of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court when the Wisconsin Right to Life group challeged advertising provisions in 2007.
Today, the law took an even bigger hit as a majority sided with Citizens United:
In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.
Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”
“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,” Stevens wrote for the others.
“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it,” he added.
The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.
Yet another reminder of how wrong-headed McCain has been on so many, many issues.
***
Ed Morrissey has much more background and analysis at Hot Air.
The opinion is here (thanks to Steve G).
Nathan Wurtzel tweets: “Not at all sure GOPers who see SCOTUS decision as a political plus are seeing whole picture. It certainly is constitutionally correct.”
A couple of points:
Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform.
As for viewing the decision through the “political plus” lens: I don’t. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don’t see it that way.
***
Citizens United reacts to the decision:
Statement From David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United
“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process.
“As our case amply demonstrates, campaign finance legislation over the last two decades has imposed, as Justice Kennedy put it, a “censorship . . . vast in its reach.” By overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and striking down McCain-Feingold’s ban on so-called electioneering communications, the Supreme Court has made possible the participation in our political process that is the right of every American citizen – a right that had been severely curtailed under McCain-Feingold .
“This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans. The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve.
“First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Kadish who have been incredibly generous from the very first day of this process. We would never have been able to reach the Supreme Court without their support. I also need to thank the thousands of donors who exercised their right to free speech to support Citizens United and this defense of the First Amendment.
“The Citizens United Board of Directors deserves a great deal of credit for recognizing the potential of this case and supporting my decision to take this fight head-on. I need to thank our legal team, beginning with Michael Boos, Vice President and General Counsel at Citizens United, and the leader of this tremendous legal team. That team included Jim Bopp, a man who has been fighting McCain-Feingold since its inception and did a phenomenal job with the early stages of this case. Finally, Ted Olsen, Matthew McGill, Amir Tayrani and the entire team at Gibson Dunn, are attorneys without peer and deserve a tremendous amount of credit for the work that they did on this case.
“Last and certainly not least, I need to thank my family for putting up with the long hours it took over the last four years to bring this case to the Supreme Court. I could not have done it without them.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Nancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
February 9, 2012 10:08 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Romney and McCain: The GOP Frenemies’ Club
January 10, 2012 09:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
219 Comments
Oops (video): McCain calls Romney “President Obama”
January 7, 2012 12:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
134 Comments
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Obama Trip to NYC on Same Night as Tree Lighting Helps Spread Holiday Cheer in Big Apple
November 30, 2011 10:48 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 Comments
Categories: Campaign finance,John McCain,Supreme Court
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New Light
YES!!!! McCain-Feingold was illegal from the get go -
Would these Justices apply the same logic to Unions?
A simple campaign finance law would be: any citizen may donate any amount to any candidate that they are eligible to vote for.
I do believe Glenn Beck is right…the paradigm is shifting! Yes! Common sense seems to be coming into play again after being stifled for so long. This country is starting to wake up and this is one of the benefits of that awakening. Soon, other common sense issues will prevail, including debunking “global warming” once and for all, jailing the eco-terrorists and allowing us to drill for oil, build nuclear power plants and free the water in California so people can once again grow their crops. We will also realize Gitmo serves a valuable purpose and terrorists should not be allowed the benefits of a free country’s justice system. Many many more ridiculous and stupid issues put forth by these insane progressives will start to fall, one by one. Yes, the shift is happening right before our eyes. But we MUST stay vigilant!
Another collaboration between OL’ JUAN and the LIBTARDS that gets shot down… Way to go OL’ JUAN!!! How about some more of that ol’ COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM???
Significant: SCOTUS reads the U.S. Constitution.
Scary: Decision was 5-4.
Figures.
Corporations are not members of society? I thought corporations had all the legal standing of an individual. Chap?
I think this is good news.
Like most laws, this law restricted basically honest folks/organizations.
Socialists undoubtedly had found ways to cheat anyway; sort of the way criminals can get guns, while honest folks are hamstrung and disadvantaged by gun laws.
I thought that a corporation was a legal fiction created so that a business could be treated as an individual….
(Don’t care if that is 100% accurate or not.)
McCain on Hannity last night was grinning ear to ear over the Mass. election results and boasting that Sarah Palin is coming down there to AZ to campaign for him. In one sense, it was nice to see him talking about smaller government, but it also made me sick on how quickly he changes his colors. McCain saw what happend in Mass. and knows a REAL conservative could easily knock him off. Trust me, in the next few months, McCain is going to portray himself as the face of conservatism. He knows there will be no illegal immigration debate this year, so his true colors won’t be shown.
It sure took the Court a long time to come up with what most Americans already knew. Today justice is not only blind and stupid, but slow too.
No surprise that the government-supremacist (liberal is such a misnomer) justices sided against the first amendment.
It’s too bad that there is no penalty for the government making or enforcing illegal legislation.
What’s also interesting is that the Court originally upheld McCain-Feingold during the Bush Administration, which refused to veto the legislation and bet wrongly instead that the Court would strike it down.
Better late than never.
5-4 splits are always a crap shoot, depending as they are on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up on. But there are still 3 things I’ll always be grateful to George Bush for:
1. Keeping algore out of the White House;
2. Keeping Lurch out of the White House; and
3. Appointing Roberts and Alito to the Court.
This is good news, but think about it.
Four of those people on the Supreme Court who are supposed to be the final guardians of the Bill of Rights saw no problem with gagging political speech right before an election.
With a radical Constitution hater in the Oval Office, and a rubber stamp Democrat Senate for any of his nominees, we are only one of five heartbeats away from tyranny.
That situation is not going to change in 2010, even with a Republican landslide. There are only 18 Democrat Senators up for election. They can still lose nine seats (an unprecedented debacle to see so many incumbents wiped out) and still be Obama’s rubber stamp to put one more traitor on the Court.
Watch this :
http://freedomwatchonfox.com/
James Bovard With Judge Napolitano
Should be seen by all Americans..
And Sarah Palin is still supporting McCain publicly? McCain is a train wreck liberal. She can give short lip service to the guy for nominating her. But she needs to allow the Republican Primaries to follow their course before endorsing this progressive lunatic. He’s done enough damage during his 26 years in D.C.
Read Sarah’s Facebook comment section for her article: “Ride the Tide with Commonsense Candidates!” I am reading a huge backlash for her support of McCain.
Also, as for the SCOTUS, in the Heller vs. DC decision on overtuning the ban on guns for citizens living in the nation’s capital, which was 5-4, 4 members (prior to Sotomayor) felt owning a gun is not a right.
I would love to read the dissenting brief. It’s got to be humorous as an agrumentative document.
YEAAAH! I may not be a Wise Latina, but even I know that this thing was unconstitutional.
How exactly? Debate on confirmation requires cloture as well. Wasn’t that the whole point of the “nuclear option”? Or is your implication that this is what Dems will do?
cntryjoe and others, it is scary that we have people sitting on the court of no appeal who read a document, know or should know the history of why that document was written, and still come up with illogical and irrational reasons why the document doesn’t really say what it says. last night, the dean/mathews discussion was much the same. mathews kept asking how dean could dream up that a vote for brown was really a vote for the healthcare bill, and dean kept insisting it was. classic lunacy, same as the free speech argument doesn’t really mean free speech.
How embarrassing. I knew that.
Also, I meant to point out guys like McCain will obviously go with Obama’s anti-Bill of Rights appointments, too, so we really need to get the Democrats down to 50 anyway.
We are but one vote away from a total fascist coup via a stacked Supreme Court. Pray for the health of our Supreme Court Justices really hard for the next three years.
Bork ALL Obama nominations-what in the hell is the purpose of accommodating the left when they will not repeat the favor? Weaklings “reached consensus” on Ginsberg and made America safe for the North American Man Boy Love Association.
Proud of that Senators? How is that Wise Latina working out?
The RINOs:
Republicans Supporting Sotomayor (9 of 40)
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
• Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
• Sen. Christopher Bond (Mo.)
• Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
• Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.)
• Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
• Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
• Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)
A few of these are already on their way out.
Agree.
Well, not for all of them….
This decision is truly a victory for freedom-loving Americans.
Now to get the rest of that dog repealed…
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Had SEIU brought this suit you can be sure the SCOTUS vote would have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.
The main flaw in Stevens’ argument is since corporations are subject to laws passed by elected officials he would deny them the ability to fully participate in the process of campaigning for their preferred candidates.
The Constitution wins again!!!
But, there are many, MANY more battles ahead.
The 2nd Ammendment needs to be fully restored.
The 10th Ammendment has been violated many times.
And others.
Hopefully Sarah Palin will now really work hard to keep her distance from McCain…
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/77305-democrats-look-to-pass-bill-to-limit-impact-of-supreme-court-decision
The dmeocrats are already planning to defy the supreme court order.
On January 21st, 2010 at 11:23 am, cntryjoe said: #9
cntryjoe, McCain already is, you outta hear his campaign bits on KFYI AM in Phoenix!
Makes me sick to hear them.
I see Sonia Sotomayor started out on the wrong side.
I support anything that places another thumb in McCain’s eye.
Btw, Scott Brown (Center-Right-Indie) is campaigning for McCain’s AZ re-election. He is now dead to me my friends.
The interpretation that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to the chidren of non-citizens (anchor babies) is aanother huge error that needs to be correctly interpreted.
She’s had decisions of hers overturned by SCOTUS even before she was a member. She’s always on the wrong side. I’m in favor of wise Latinas, too bad Obama doesn’t seem to know any.
Bush never should have signed this!
McCain needs to go!
Palin has shot herself in the foot, one would think she’d know about gun safety.
Oh no! Not Sonia Lotomanure! Say it isn’t so! Did she quote law or just her feelings? Nice pick you poinyoins!
He was important as a message to Washington – not for being “conservative” which he probably isn’t. But his election terrified Dems, which is good.
But not on JD’s drive time show-gotta luv it. My daughter-in-law’s father was a POW; he informs me John McCain was not the only one. The next solicitation you get from Johnny Boy could be returned this way:
As money corrupts politics I will not be sending you any. You could ask Russ Feingold for a loan.
And yes pray for all the Supreme Court Justices-we do not want Obama replacing old liberals with young liberals.
Perhaps she was planning on taking Johnny Boy quail hunting?
Go here and read why the 14th Amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens. There is a second speech by Michelle Malkin, too!
Great stuff.
Now when will they rule that a President has to qualify for the office?
As soon as the ink is dry on Obrainless’s certificate of live birth…
FIFY, need a bit of a margin for the Snowe and Collins types.
I’m not sure interpetation is the problem. Unless, it’s with what is actually meant by the phrase: “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…”. Are aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the US on our soil? I would think they are. So, I think the amendment as written needs amending.
As Rush said, “Freedom is awakening”. Folks, once the scales are removed from the eyes of the American people, the truth will continue to set us free. We ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!
After reading the article linked above by TooMuchTime, I retract my post above regarding the 14th Amendment. Professor Erler seems to have his ducks lined up.
Thanks!
Next the the court needs to over turn the eminent domain ruling followed by anything else which violates the Constitution.
Indeed.
That was intended to grant citizenship for slaves.
http://conservapedia.com/Fourteenth_Amendment
It has since been abused to grant citizenship to anchor babies and such.
McCain-Feingold was THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN for me. McCain’s CRUSADE to destroy my First Amendment rights convinced me BACK THEN that I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
I should not have to wait 7 or 8 years for the Supreme court to recognize the supremacy of the Constitution when it comes to Free Speech.
And it scares the HELL out of me that this case was decided 5-4.
McCain, April 2006
“He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform….I know that money corrupts….I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”
His notion of “clean government” trumps our Constitutional rights.
I just don’t know what to think of Sarah Palin for supporting him as a “common sense candidate”.
Three Victories in 3 Days!!!
I presume then corporations should not have to pay taxes?
The opinion hits the fairness doctrine and net neutrality as well …
The first amendment means what it says, once more.
*More good news this week; Bad news is that 4 of the Supremes don’t believe in the 1st amendment!
*I hear Sarah Palin is going to campaign for McCain in Arizona; Big mistake, as she will fritter away all of her cred if she does so; Please stay away, far away from this RINO rat bastard who will shortly be reaching across the aisle to push illegal alien amnesty!
Just think all you union workers. With this decision and the DOL getting rid of union reporting requirements, your worthless union pensions can be converted into valuable democratic campaign ads.
I’m not sure I can say the First Amendment has been fully restored here. There may be some more work to do on that front as well.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Great news!! But as others have said, that it was 5-4 is spine chilling. To think four justices would do away with Freedom of Speech is scary. But, then again, we are living under the New Deal constitution, not the Founder’s. Welcome to the world of democratic socialism.
McCain/Bipartisan reaching arm across aisle= not good for conservatives
McCain, while strong on military and is anti-terrorism, is wrong on many things and deserves to lose this year— unless he suddenly wakes up and has a conservative moment and keeps his arms on our side of the aisle.
Nah. Getting the number down to 50 should suffice…
…we’re talking about the House, right?
Honestly …
Who would trust him if he did?
Go J.D.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
But sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Agreed.
Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform.
Agreed.
Does the majority opinion require ‘sunlight’ and ‘transparency?’
Unfortunately, the answer is no. The majority opinion reads (from the excerpt provided) -
“The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements . . . ”
The word ‘may’ is operative. Yes, current law requires individuals to list amounts given, occupation, and that sort of thing. Does the current law apply to corporations? Are there maximums amount of money that corporations can contribute? There are maximums amount of money for individuals.
There very well might be unintended consequences to this decision.
McCain will not remain conservative past the election.
McCain’s trying to get re-elected in Arizona, and he always goes conservative two years or so out. He’ll revert to form the second he’s re-elected, and we’ll be back to Senator “Walk Across The Aisle And Sit Down”.
Trouble is that this time, he’s the party leader. How many lemmings will follow him? Defeat him now, and we won’t have to find out.
Pass another Saturday night bill, and ignore the SCOTUS.
Michelle, that is absolutely correct.
Now, apply that thinking to the 20th Amendment.
Tell me, what official documents did Congress personally inspect in order to support and defend this section of the Constitution:
Congress certified the Electoral College vote, but they never qualified the President.
Congress can’t outsource their 20th amendment responsibility to qualify the President. Yet they did… to an unelected, non-governmental organization (Annenberg Political Fact Check).
And Congress can’t ignore or redefine the legal definition of “natural born citizen”.
Exactly.
The only way to get RINOs attention is to take them out of action. That is why any Tea Party movement worth its salt must now focus on eliminating RINOs, especially
McCain, in the primaries, or the whole Tea Party effort will be a waste of time.
Putting in pretty-boy Brown only has value to me, at least, as a block of wood against the Obama agenda. In order to clean the Republicans up, you have to be willing to destroy the RINOs between now and 2012; John McCain is not worth saving-if anything he is the worst of the RINO influence IMO.
The main thing I am noticing on liberal websites is comments all talking about how corporations will benefit greatly from this ruling. I have yet to see one stating that unions will also be taking advantage of it.
I’m torn. I support the first amendment. And it basically has no exceptions for corporate campaign contributions or anything else – including, unfortunately, kiddie porn.
Two things come to mind as means of bringing sanity to a first amendment world, personal responsibility for one’s self and one’s actions, and small government that is too small to matter enough to bribe.
Kiddie porn is solved by personal responsibility. If one acts out on it, then one must expect to be punished accordingly. The saying is not the problem. The action is. Deal (harshly) with the action not the words.
Bribery that affects us on a national scale by the fact that the national scale would no longer be what it is today.
Note, too, that the contributions have been happening one way or another. Now it’s above board with reporting. And we can require INSTANT reporting on the Internet if we can get our legislators to make the appropriate law.
{^_^}
Let the free market work.
Alan Grayson has a petition out there to fight this decision or revamp McCain/Feingold’s version. maybe his campaign website can be swamped with “you’re a retard” traffic.
Despite our disagreement on another subject in another thread, I must say I am 100% with you on this post. I am cautiously optimistic, for the first time since Obama became president, that common sense conservatism is winning the battle of ideas in the minds of a majority. On all the issues you list, the people have the right ideas and those ideas are opposite what this radical president, Pelosi and Reid want.
Yes, we must remain vigilant! We cannot afford to let up just because we have won a few victories. We must continue to vigorously support conservative candidates wherever they challenge. They will usually be the Republican candidate but may sometimes be third party. They will never be the Democratic candidate. So-called “blue-dogs” are just liberals pretending to be something else because of the districts they must run in. They are not to be trusted ever. Like Ben Nelson, they will appease their constituants by casting conservative votes when their vote is not decisive but will show their true liberal colors when the chips are down. We should thank Nelson for finally putting to rest the notion that such a creature as a “conservative Democrat” even exists.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about McCain-Feingold; you don’t really want the rich to have more “free speech” than the rest of us. But it is screwy to say that you can’t run XYZ campaign ad because of some law. The Supremes have apparently settled this issue.
You know, at least I know, that any reasonable junior high school student reading the Constitution would come to the same conclusion. Yes, putting restrictions on some and not on others is not self evidently equal treatment. Reasonable here is defined as truth seeking reasoning with what IS written. Of course if you are not reasonable, but are devious you could come up with thousands of definitions of simple statements. Each day a new meaning of life. With reason there is consistency each day your rights remain the same. It is self evident that 4 of the supreme court justices are not reasonable people….how could that be 4 of the so called top legal mines incapable of reason?
I’m not so sure it’s what ‘most Americans’ already knew, seeing as 86% of folks responding to MSNBC’s poll about this decision were against it.
like zzyzzyg, I’m concerned about the unintended consequences htere. This decision, in effect, does increase the power of special interests to influence election outcomes, and I’ve long held the opinion that the influence of special interest money in politics is THE primary reason we now have a two party system in which BOTH parties’ decision making is driven more by that money, than the desires of their constituents.
I knew as soon as Keith Uberjerk started soiling his diapers about this decision last night that it must be correct.
And MM of course hits the nail on the head: Adherence to the tenets of the Constitution is more important than opinions about electoral outcomes.
It’s still the case that Corporations and Unions can’t vote; only humans can vote.
As long as the press is doing it’s job, and the source of all campaign financing is disclosed, then the electorate remains in charge (however feebly).
If the electorate’s judgement is deemed “flawed”, that’s still better than the inherent flaw of having a 3rd party referee (ie, government) pre-selecting who can and can’t say what.
The pundits that claimed this would be horrible are disconnected from reality!
In California, the unions out here have been plowing hundreds of millions into elections, with little opposition, SINCE this law was passed! All this is going to do is to level the playing field a bit!
The perfect example were the hundreds of adds they ran for the teacher union stooge they pushed in the last assembly election. This particular stooge had just managed to ‘lose’ tens of millions to unions in a local scam, and needed to ‘move forward’ in her political life! The unions ran one fraudulent lie after the next in this campaign. To the point that most people NEVER SAW ONE SINGLE add from the opposing candidate. In the end, she won by a tiny margin. After the election, the unions admitted the ad’s they ran were all lies, admitted they spent tens of millions for them, and bragged about how she would be a ‘trusted vote’ for their causes!
Within a few weeks of being sworn into office, she voted for the largest tax increase in the history of Ca! Because, as she admitted, the teachers union had ‘bought her vote fair and square’!
McCain-Feingold was nothing more than a way to protect incumbents during an election. Members of Congress are forever inventing clever ways to protect their hold on power.
It’s sickening that McCain would co-author such a piece of legislative garbage. Good riddance to this ugly law and hopefully, good riddance to McCain in November.