Newsflash ladies and gentlemen! In a 5-4 Decision this morning, the Supreme Court has overturned a 63 year old law and several lower court decisions that prohibited labor unions and private companies from using their own funds to air their own campaign ads. The Full text of the decision is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/25537902/Citizens-Opinion.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
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.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
For those who have not followed the case, the controversy started when the Conservative Political group Citizens United created an anti-Hillary Clinton campaign video during her run for Presidency. Their goal was to air the ads thru "On-Demand" distribution services. The FEC and federal Courts took issue, saying the film looked more like a campaign ad, and enforced campaign advertising regulations on the film.
The issue developed as lower tried to draw distinctions between what is permissible for individuals, unions and corporations.
As for the immediate impact, expect a RIDICULOUS AMOUNT of spending by privately funded groups, including corporations and union groups in the upcoming midterm. The mechanics of the change simplify just how corporate money can be funneled to candidates:
This basically eliminates a middleman: before today, corporations and unions had to set up PACs (political action committees), filed separately with the IRS, that would receive donations. And they did. Corporations and unions spend millions of dollars on elections. Now, however, the accounting firewall is gone, and Wal-Mart or the Service Employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate money directly on candidates.
What do you think? How will the change impact the progressive movement, labor unions and the midterms? I will have more posts on the topic when I get a chance examine the full decision in greater detail.
