[NEWS] Supreme Court Allows Corporations To Support Campaigns

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/pl_nm/us_usa_court_politics

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html?_r=2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.

"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said after the 5-4 ruling that divided the nation's high court along conservative and liberal lines.

"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," Obama said.

Obama said he instructed administration officials "to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue" and "talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

The ruling, a defeat for Obama and supporters of campaign finance limits, is expected to unleash a flood of money to be spent in this year's congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the long-standing campaign finance limits violated constitutional free-speech rights of corporations.

"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," he wrote.

The four liberal dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

RULING COULD UNDERMINE INTEGRITY-DISSENT

In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.

The ruling will almost certainly allow labor unions to spend more freely in political campaigns also and it posed a threat to similar limits that had been imposed in about half of the country's 50 states.

The top court struck down the part of the federal law that restricted broadcast advertisements for or against political candidates right before elections that are paid for by corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups.

The 2002 campaign finance law at issue was named after Senator John Mc Cain, the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in 2008, and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele praised the ruling and said, "Free speech strengths our democracy."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch Mc Connell, long an opponent of the law, said, "For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process."

But the law's supporters said the ruling will allow corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections.

"The bottom line is, the Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November's election. It won't be the Republican or the Democrats and it won't be the American people; it will be corporate America," Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said.

The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became Obama's secretary of state.

The Obama administration defended the law's restrictions on election-related spending by corporations, unions and interest groups.

The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of then-President George W. Bush, in the ruling made a dramatic change in the campaign finance law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.

What do you think the political ramifications of this will be? Should "Free speech" be allowed for corporations, or will this signal the return of a new "Gilded Age"?

edited 21st Jan '10 1:19:21 PM by [AOD]

It will make the buying of politicians all the more obvious. "Support legislation we like, or we'll blitz your campaign with attack ads."

—R.J.

(Thanks a lot, conservative justices...)

But they'll still have to disclose where they get their funding from, right?

My comment from the IJBM thread we have on this topic (which has a stupid title and should die):

Corporations aren't people and shouldn't enjoy the same rights. Allowing them to throw thier money around for political purposes under the guise of "free speech" is just bullshit.

This ruling was not unexpected.

This will not, of course, make it easier for pro-business politicians to win; amount of money spent on a campaign doesn't have much effect on who wins.

It still sucks though, because politicians think money helps, so they take bribes from corporations, so even more congresspeople then now will be pawns of big business.

(Though, I do kind of agree that it would be unconstitutional to ban an advertisement based on... well, pretty much anything, but especially who paid for it. )

edited 21st Jan '10 2:33:13 PM by BlackHumor

As far as I understand it, it sounds like corporations can now act politically directly, instead of giving money to lobbyists who do the dirty work for them. In short, they're just cutting out the middle man. Business as usual otherwise.

I'm not bothered. Provided corporations have a limit like most contributors, I don't see the real problem. They were talking about this on NPR as I was driving to the local SSA office. One of the commentators there mentioned that most corporate donations/support would go towards television ads, but the advent of other, viable media to gain donations for political campaigns somewhat curbs the "damage."

This is a disaster of epic proportions. The "democratic" system in the USA was already infamous for the power corporations and lobbies had over it, allowing governments to completely ignore the will of their voters once elected, and strongly restricting the programme a politician could defend.

But this is Beyond the Impossible. This. Is. Outragous, This Is Unforgivable!... I wonder how Obama will get rid of these guys, otherwise I foresee problems for him in the next elections. Will we have a Clinton II, with Republicans winning congress elections with a Democrate president? Hopefully he won't engage in the same nonsense as Blowjob Bill but I sense trouble.

I'm not entirely sure that it's going to be the huge problem some of you anticipate. There will be changes in both directions.

It's not like they weren't already making sizable contributions.

For one thing, it means that the corporation money will no longer all be funneled through other donors — more of it is going to be right out there on the campaign donations list.

The other thing is, quite frankly, I really would rather know which candidate a company like GM, Archer-Daniels-Midlands, Microsoft or Walt Disney Corporation thinks is going to serve their interests better.

What if they bet on everyone?

Corporations generally don't donate to a candidate they don't support. If they donate equally to all the candidates, for an office, I can be pretty sure that I'm screwed. But the odds of that are slim — someone isn't going to get as big a slice of pie as the others...

I don't like the role of money in politics, but the decision does appear to be the constitutional one.

> What if they bet on everyone?

Why would you even do that? The closest thing I can even think of would be if you want some one to win in the primaries, fund some one in each, and they both end up going head to head.

You donate to some one because you want them to win, right?

No, because you want whoever wins to owe you. So at least you'll finance the big two candidates.

You want whoever wins to owe you, yes, but one candidate will almost always be a better match to your own goals than the other. That's the candidate you support more. If he wins, he owes you and he's already heading in the direction you want him to go. As far as corporate interests are concerned, there's always a "preferred candidate"; one they would prefer to have win the office.

Plus, if I give two candidates who are running against each other exactly equal amounts of money, neither of them owes me anything since I didn't actually help them any because I gave as much money to their opponent as I gave to them.

Best decision for a corporation is to favor one candidate; and as long as you have to do that, why not try and bribe the candidate who would vote pretty much your way anyways?

No more backroom dealing means the death of conspiracy fiction. Also, will people now be more inclined to vote along company lines? PC vs. Mac would go political.

"No more backroom deals"? That's a good one.

edited 22nd Jan '10 5:16:25 AM by BringTheNoise

So this is why my topic failed!

It failed because of the stupid title you gave it.

Cyberpunk world, here we come.

That is, unless the US somehow becomes unimportant within the next 5 years.

This... isn't good. Political campaigns already spend a ridiculous amount of money trying to get every last vote. I want less campaign spending, not more. Do corporations really not have enough of a hold on the American people? I know "democracy is screwed" is a pretty alarmist statement, but if any ruling has potential to turn America into a corporation-run dystopia, this is it.

....okaaaaaay, moving on, here's the link to the ruling.

Not surprised. The US has finally stopped lying to itself.