From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8"
Subject: Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:15:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type="text/html";
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA9AE7.3D422B70"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16669
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA9AE7.3D422B70
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0121/Supreme-Court-Campaign-finance-limits-violate-free-speech
=EF=BB=BF
Supreme Court: =
Campaign-finance limits violate free speech / The Christian Science =
Monitor - CSMonitor.com
The Supreme Court campaign finance ruling on Thursday means =
corporations can=20
spend freely on political ads leading up to elections. The Thursday =
decision=20
invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law =
that=20
sought to limit corporate influence.
=
=20
=20
Common Cause=20
President Bob Edgar (r.) and Public Campaign President Nick Nyhart (l.), =
accompanied by Public Campaign Legal Center Executive Director Gerald =
Hebert=20
(c.), lambast the Supreme Court's campaign-finance ruling during a news=20
conference Thursday outside the Supreme Court in Washington.
The US Supreme Court has struck down a major portion of a 2002=20
campaign-finance reform law, saying it violates the free-speech right of =
corporations to engage in public debate of political issues.
In a landmark 5-to-4 decision announced Thursday, the high court =
overturned a=20
1990 legal precedent and reversed a position it took in 2003, when a =
different=20
lineup of justices upheld government restrictions on independent =
political=20
expenditures by corporations during elections.
=E2=80=9CGovernment may not suppress political speech on the basis of =
the speaker=E2=80=99s=20
corporate identity,=E2=80=9D Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the =
57-page majority=20
opinion. =E2=80=9CNo sufficient governmental interest justifies limits =
on the political=20
speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.=E2=80=9D
Ahead, a flood of corporate/union election spending?
The decision opens the gates for what campaign reform advocates warn =
will be=20
a flood of corporate spending in future elections. The ruling is =
expected to=20
permit similar political expenditures from the general treasuries of =
labor=20
unions, as well.
=E2=80=9CThis is the most radical and destructive campaign-finance =
decision in the=20
history of the Supreme Court,=E2=80=9D said Fred Worthheimer, president =
of Democracy=20
21.
=E2=80=9CToday=E2=80=99s decision is the Super Bowl of really bad =
decisions. It returns us to=20
the days of the robber barons,=E2=80=9D said Bob Edgar, president of =
Common Cause.
Among political leaders, Democrats attacked the decision and =
Republicans=20
praised it.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky lauded the =
decision as=20
=E2=80=9Cmonumental.=E2=80=9D Texas Sen. John Cornyn said he was pleased =
by the decision. =E2=80=9CThese=20
are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and =
strengthen=20
our democracy,=E2=80=9D he said.
From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a =
=E2=80=9Cmajor victory for=20
big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other =
powerful=20
interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out =
the=20
voices of everyday Americans.=E2=80=9D
Electioneering vs. free speech
At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act =
(BCRA),=20
commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold law. Section 203 of the law =
barred=20
corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to pay =
for=20
advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate in =
a way=20
that Federal Election Commission officials might view as electioneering. =
The ban=20
applied 30 days before any primary and 60 days before a general =
election.
Campaign-reform advocates said the provision was necessary to prevent =
a=20
proliferation of noncandidate advertisements (paid for by wealthy =
corporations=20
and unions) from crowding out the candidates=E2=80=99 own campaign =
ads.
Critics of the regulation said it amounted to unconstitutional =
censorship.=20
They argued that corporations should enjoy a First Amendment right to =
spend=20
money and advocate political and policy positions during election =
seasons just=20
as individuals can.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed with the critics. =
=E2=80=9CRapid changes in=20
technology =E2=80=93 and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of =
free expression=20
=E2=80=93 counsel against upholding a law that restricts political =
speech in certain=20
media or by certain speakers,=E2=80=9D Justice Kennedy wrote. =
=E2=80=9CThe First Amendment does=20
not permit Congress to make =E2=80=A6 categorical distinctions based on =
the corporate=20
identity of the speaker and the content of the political =
speech.=E2=80=9D
The dissent: 'integrity of elected institutions' at stake
In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the =
majority=20
opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. =E2=80=9CWhile =
American democracy is=20
imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its =
flaws=20
included a dearth of corporate money in politics,=E2=80=9D he wrote.
=E2=80=9CThe court=E2=80=99s ruling threatens to undermine the =
integrity of elected=20
institutions across the nation,=E2=80=9D he said.
The high court decision leaves intact campaign contribution =
regulations =E2=80=93=20
including laws barring campaign contributions to federal candidates from =
corporations and unions. It also leaves intact laws barring so-called =
soft-money=20
contributions to political parties.
Around 800 homes in the Los Angeles area were issued evacuation =
orders as=20
the fourth storm to hit the region this week arrived Thursday, causing =
power=20
outages and chaos for drivers. Heavy rain is unusual in this area. =