[Vision2020] Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Corporate Election Contributions

[Tom Hansen]

"In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said corporations have
the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the
government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the
outcome of federal elections."

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times at

http://tinyurl.com/ygq3juv

-----------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st
Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend
their own money on political ads for federal candidates.
By David G. Savage
Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on
corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that
companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to
persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White
House.

In a 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said corporations have
the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the
government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the
outcome of federal elections.

The decision is probably the most sweeping and consequential handed down
under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. And the outcome may well have an
immediate impact on this year's mid-term elections to Congress.

Until now, corporations and unions have been barred from spending their
own treasury funds on broadcast ads or billboards that urge the election
or defeat of a federal candidate. This restriction dates back to 1907,
when President Theodore Roosevelt called on Congress to forbid
corporations, railroads and national banks from using their money in
federal election campaigns. After World War II, Congress extended this ban
to labor unions.

In today's decision, the high court struck down that restriction and said
the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to
spend their own money on political ads.

"The 1st Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical
distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the
content of the political speech," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the
court.

Two significant prohibitions on corporations were left standing.
Corporations, and presumably unions, cannot give money directly to the
campaigns of federal candidates. These "contribution" restrictions were
not challenged in the case decided today. And secondly, the court affirmed
current federal rules which require the sponsors of political ads to
disclose who paid for them.

Most election-law expert have predicted a court decision freeing
corporations will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall's
contests for Congress. And they predict Republicans will be the main
beneficiaries.

Today's decision was supported by five justices who were Republican
nominees. They include Kennedy and Roberts along with Justices Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a
dissent written by 89-year old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from
the bench, he called today's decision "a radical change in the law ...
that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions -- and the
narrow interests they represent -- in determining who will hold public
office."

The decision today, though long forecast, displayed a deep division of
opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and freedom of
speech. The majority said the Constitution broadly protected discussion
and debate on politics, regardless of who was paying for the speech.
Roberts said he was not prepared to "embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment
that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts,
but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium
that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views
on matters of public concern."

But Stevens and the dissenters said the majority was ignoring the
long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from
corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments. "Under
today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign
governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to
tilt U.S. elections. "Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote
and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to
restrictions under the election laws.

Today's opinion dealt only with corporations, but its logic would suggest
that unions will also have the same right in the future to spend unions
funds on ad campaigns for federal candidates.

-----------------------------------------------------

The new Golden Rule . . .

"He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Seeya on Saturday, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown