Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle ”” that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business.
The decision will be felt most immediately in the coming midterm elections, given that it comes just two days after Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and as popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses continues to boil.
May? Evidence of judicial activism in overturning years of precedent.
Not overturning years of precedent, but going back to the traditional understanding of the First Amendment.
If you assume that precedents are right and correct I suppose you can make the argument. Slavery had its precedents, Segregation had its precedents and also Abortion. One man’s “Judicial Activist” is another man’s “Strict Constructionist”.
And, this decision is fully supported by the ACLU who wrote an amicus brief on the case (heads exploding on all sides 🙂 )
Well, actually, it is keeping with (bad) judicial precedent, going back to Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) that said corporations were people under the 14th amendment.
I agree with Ad Orientem who posted on his blog earlier, “No person or entity that is not eligible for the franchise should be allowed to spend a dime on political campaigns or propaganda.”
Individuals matter less and less when this understanding of the Constitution prevails. The State of California and a good portion of the municipalities within its borders are run by unions because they can raise money and buy votes. The future will now be Leftists groups v. Right Wing groups and Big Business buying all of them. Let’s just keep watching the movie.
#5 So, would you argue that the New York Times should not be allowed to spend money running editorials? After all, the NYT is not a person, so shouldn’t have first amendment rights, no?
And from Patterico:
No. 7,
The press has specific protection in the Bill of Rights. If corporations or unions or other groups are to get the same special protection, then constitutionally, they should get their own specific amendment. If not, then, the separation of powers comes into play and the legislatures has the right to regulate them.
In any event, there is a difference between freedom of press and the vested self interest of corporations or unions channeling money into campaigns. It seems to me that the modern American corporation has the ‘perfect’ situation. When it benefits the corporation, it is granted the legal rights of a person. And in other instances, when it benefits the corporation, the corporation (and/or its officers and shareholders) is not conceived of in a manner that would associate with it the legal liabilities and obligations of a person.
#9 – General Electric owns NBC. Is General Electric part of the press? What about NBC?
I might add to my #11: what kind of business activites are corporations in the ‘press’ allowed to do?
Sidney,
I think we are thinking along different lines here. I have no problem with corporations or unions or churches for that matter endorsing candidates, if that is what you are thinking, provided they get regulated as a PAC. They are free to make political statements all they want.
The question in this case is whether donating money constitutes free speech (and as such cannot be subject to government censure) and, if so, whether a grouping, whatever that may be, falls into whom can directly donate money to campaigns as a derivative of that speech.
First of all, I don’t necessary buy the logic that giving money to candidates is, in fact, speech. Anything that is a physical action can be regulated for the common good. For example, free speech can be regulated when you think you can yell, “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.
Secondly, groups like corporations and unions are granted existence at the behest of the government. You cannot exist as a corporation or union without the government saying you can legally exist as an entity. Therefore, the courts by fiat saying that the government cannot monetarily regulate such entities (and campaign financing is monetary in nature) when the government itself has to sole power of recognizing or not the said entity is ludicrous.
Thirdly, I think unless a corporation or union (or newspaper for that matter) can physically vote, then they should not be able to physically give money to a candidate. The power in the constitution is vested in the people, the individuals that the government represents. Government is not representative of corporations or unions, and thus the common good suggests that allowing entities other than voting individuals to fund political campaigns is tantamount to bribery, and thus the action can be regulated by the people in the form of their elected government.
13, money and support is how you make your speech effective. It is the muscle of speech. You want to regulate speech at the point it actually becomes effective. You would favor the rich man over the poor.
On the contrary, Br. Michael, I favor the poor man over the rich. If the poor man is poor and has not money to contribute to a campaign, how then can he be heard if he is drowned out by special interests money of uber-wealthy corporations and unions?
Archer,
I don’t necessary buy the logic that giving money to candidates is, in fact, speech.
Would you agree to regulate the purchase of advertising in the ‘press’ as a political donation? If not, what is the real difference between buying an ad in a paper (which endorses candidates one likes) and donating to a political campaign?
Thirdly, I think unless a corporation or union (or newspaper for that matter) can physically vote, then they should not be able to physically give money to a candidate.
Should a corporation or union be allowed to buy advertising in a media publication which participates in campaigns? If not, what is the difference between donating money to a campaign and buying advertising in a media whose political positions and coverage you support?
Sorry, those 2 questions are pretty much the same….didn’t proof read carefully enough….
15, we are all in special interests. And some individuals have more money than others. Bill Gates for example. How does the average joe compete with that? The answer is that we pool our money.
To get the utopea you want you require a complex system of government regulation of speech which destroys the very thing you say you want. Just look at the specific case and the film that government banned in order to benefit a person in government.
Archer – I do believe that corporations and unions are still enjoined against donating money to candidates. But the question comes down to one of speech. Should corporations be allowed to opine on political matters? You said ” I have no problem with corporations or unions or churches for that matter endorsing candidates, if that is what you are thinking, provided they get regulated as a PAC. They are free to make political statements all they want.” Why do they have to be regulated as a PAC or regulated at all? Isn’t that what the 1st amendment says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.” Now I believe that any advertisment or political statement should be very clear about who it is by and what it supports. How much is a union’s GOTV campaign worth to the democratic candidate – particularly when almost 50% of union employees work for federal, state, or local governments.
One of the goals of the 1st Amendment is to guard the freedom of political speech.
Now they just have to recognize churches as legal persons as well.