home

Citizens United Decision: "It's Bad"

Just got an e-mail that the Citizens United campaign finance case just came down. The e-mail says - "It's bad." No details other than "Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded." Kennedy wrote the opinion.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of commerce is overruled.

The opinion (PDF).

Upshot - Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS BLOG - "The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections."

< "A Man's World" | John Edwards Admits Paternity , Heads to Haiti >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    SCOTUS Blog (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    is live-blogging the decision...

    Proves again my view Rehnquist was to the left (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    of Kennedy.  By the way, since O'Connor was also anti-Austin, I'm not sure if she had stayed on the court, it wouldn't have been similarly overruled also.

    Just looking (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    Is it quite as bad as expected?

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    to be honest, I am not convinced that it is that big a practical change. Corporations are almost certainly going to continue to use PACs.

    It looks better.

    Parent

    The difference -- and its a huge one -- (none / 0) (#5)
    by domer5000 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    is that corporations will now be able to use their corporate treasuries to fund their PACs, rather than relying on the individual contributions of their officers and managers.  

    Parent
    Not seeing that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    But I have a 2:30 call with the lawyers in the case and maybe they'll explain it to me.

    Parent
    tks (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    My battery is running down, so I won't be able to slog through the whole thing.

    Parent
    For the last hundred years (none / 0) (#8)
    by domer5000 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    Federal law has prohibited corporations from using their corporate treasuries, amassed with the help of state laws that authorize their creation and provide state protections to them, to make contributions to or expenditures on behalf of candidates.  Many states and local governments have followed suit.  The one exception is that they may created PACs funded by officer and manager contributions, and may use treasury funds to pay for the administrative costs for the PAC.  Today's decision means that Chevron could spend a billion dollars on an independent expenditure for or against a candidate, which it could not do before today.

    Parent
    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    I'm listening. I'll report back on the call.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    From the majority opinion:


    The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations -- including nonprofit advocacy corporations -- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate's defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

    Emphasis added.

    It is good to see this assault on the first amendment sruck down.

    This is (none / 0) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    the end of our democracy.

    You've been granted your long term wish.

    Parent

    The ACLU (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    The ACLU or the NRA or the garden club broadcasting something critical about a candidate before an election is the end of democracy!  That seems just a tad over the top.

    Parent
    Stevens: (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not per­ mitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech. [52]

    FN 52.  [V]oting is not speech in a pure or formal sense, but then again neither is a campaign expenditure; both are nevertheless communicative acts aimed at influencing electoral out­ comes.

    Heh.