Friday, January 22, 2010

Another Look At Yesterday's Corporate Supreme Court Decision-- This Time By Russ Feingold

>


Last night we took at first look at the long anticipated corporate move, through the 5 Supreme Court judges they own-- against Democracy. almst non-existent in that post is Russ Feingold, the author of the law that the 5 reactionary Justices cut to pieces. That's because we thought Russ should have a post all to himself. Here's his fact sheet on Citizens United vs FEC. He's relieved that wjat he calls the core of McCain-Feingold-- the ban on soft-money contributions to political parties-- still stands, he's concerned that the decision ignored long-standing legal principles instituted under President Teddy Roosevelt and upends a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. As so many reform-minded progressives reminded us yesterday, the narrow decision by the far right judges turns back progress, exactly what they were put in place to do. Russ:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC has opened the floodgates to corporate money in federal campaigns in ways we haven’t seen for nearly a century.  While for decades corporations have been able to set up special accounts, called PACs, to accept contributions and spend them on political activities, they have not been allowed to spend money from their vast corporate treasuries in connection with federal elections. Citizens United v. FEC has changed all that. 

In this case, the Court took a narrow campaign finance issue and decided a much broader one-- whether a century of laws protecting against corruption in government, laws which have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional, should suddenly be overturned. While the core of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often known as McCain-Feingold, isn’t affected by this decision, the decision does eviscerate longstanding campaign finance law.   

Below are some key points about the decision, and how the Court’s move to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1991) and portions of McConnell v. FEC (2003) will undermine our democratic process...

How Unlimited Corporate Spending on Advertising May Impact Campaigns

Corporations have huge war chests that far exceed current spending in our political system. During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 500 companies alone had profits of $743 billion. By comparison, spending by candidates, outside groups, and political parties on the last presidential election totaled just over $2 billion. That is a lot of money, but it’s nothing compared to what corporations and unions have in their treasuries.  

The Supreme Court has now allowed unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. That means, for example, that Wall Street banks and firms, having just taken our country into its worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, could spend millions upon millions of dollars on ads directly advocating the defeat of those candidates who want to prevent future economic disaster by imposing new financial services regulations.

Congress Acted to Curb Corruption for a Reason

Congress long ago placed reasonable limits on corporate spending in order to preserve the importance of individual citizens’ votes and to curb corruption, and the appearance of corruption, in government. Congress struck back against the power of the trusts with the Tillman Act, and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Then, after many other scandals in the years that followed, including the controversy surrounding overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and exclusive White House coffees for big donors, it passed the BCRA. The Court’s decision, while it does leave the core of McCain-Feingold intact, in many ways takes us back to the era of the robber barons in the 19th century. 

The Court Ignored Longstanding Legal Principles

In its ruling, the Court ignored several time-honored principles that have served for the past two centuries to preserve the public’s respect for and acceptance of its decisions. This decision runs contrary to the concept of “judicial restraint,” the idea that a court should decide a case on constitutional grounds only if absolutely necessary, and should rule as narrowly as possible. Here, the Court did just the opposite-- it decided the constitutionality of all restrictions on corporate spending in connection with elections in an obscure case in which many far more narrow rulings were possible. 

The Court also ignored stare decisis, the historic respect for precedent, which Chief Justice John Roberts termed “judicial modesty” during his 2005 confirmation hearing. It’s hard to imagine a bigger blow to stare decisis than to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that has been the cornerstone of the nation’s campaign finance system for 100 years.  

Finally, the Court ignored the longstanding practice of deciding a case only after lower courts have fully examined the facts. Here, because the broad constitutional questions raised in the recent reargument of the case were not raised in the court below, there is no factual record at all on which the Court could base its legal conclusions.
 
Just a little over six years ago in the McConnell opinion, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ The only thing that has changed since then is the composition of the Court. It is deeply disappointing that this Court, and particularly its newest members, had so little respect for precedent. This decision will surely undermine public confidence in the Court as well as damage our nation’s political system.


UPDATE: President Obama Speaks About The Dangers To Democracy By The 5 Corporate Supreme Court Judges

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

At 5:22 AM, Anonymous Balakirev said...

Isn't it amazing that all that Teabagger outrage is nowhere to be seen? ;)

 
At 8:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk about judicial activism. Corporations have rights conferred by the first amendment? Are these 5 Supreme chowderheads kidding? Read the Bill of Rights. Does any sober human being think they were written for corporations?

 
At 12:10 PM, Anonymous pantherq said...

The teabagger meme on this is that the unions will use this to make us socialized. Forgetting that union power was destroyed by Reagan.

 
At 12:12 PM, Blogger john galt said...

the 1st amendment states congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech what's so hard about this any law the restricts anyones right to us any method to state their political views is unconstitutional regardless of any past ruling the court has clearly made bad rulings that does not stop them from correcting their misstates

 
At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmmm...Nobody's happy; must be a good decision!

 
At 3:48 PM, Blogger classicliberal2 said...

"Isn't it amazing that all that Teabagger outrage is nowhere to be seen?"

I find it disappointing that there's so little outrage to be found anywhere, honestly. Keith Olbermann was virtually alone, yesterday, in grasping the true horror of this ruling. I've always been constitutionally anti-alarmist. People tend to yell "the sky is falling!" over every little thing, and I tend to try to calm such sentiment, and urge a more reasoned approach. Things are rarely as bad as doomsayers say they seem, tomorrow's another day, the sun WILL still come up, etc. This ruling, though, does justify that heightened level of concern against which I generally counsel. And I'm just not seeing it.

As for the teabaggers, they don't become "outraged" until they're told to do so by their astroturfing paymasters. As those paymasters are delighted by the ruling, don't expect them to be spenidng a lot of time whipping them up against it.

--classicliberal2

 
At 11:47 PM, Anonymous me said...

It is clear that Roberts perjured himself when describing his judicial philosophy during his confirmation hearings. Can't we impeach the son of a bitch for that?

 
At 6:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats have Saturday Night Live, Hollywood, and MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and 60 minutes and CBS as ongoing commercials..I would say CSPAN, but Obama lied about having negotiations and vote buying on there..now, Capitalists have corporations, who employ most Americans with the right to speak out..I say about time

 

Post a Comment

<< Home