Thank god…
Mar 26, 2010 news
From the AP:
RNC loses bid to raise unlimited ‘soft’ money
By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court Friday denied a Republican Party bid to raise soft money, the unlimited donations from corporations and individuals banned by a 2002 campaign finance law. In a separate ruling, judges said a conservative group can raise unlimited sums for independent election ads but must regularly disclose its donors.
In a case brought by the Republican National Committee, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington said it lacks the authority to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban on soft money fundraising by national party committees. That ban is a cornerstone of the so-called McCain-Feingold law and one of the few major parts of the law to survive court challenges.
The RNC had argued that it should be able to raise soft money for state elections, congressional redistricting, legal costs and other activities that it said had nothing to do with federal elections. The Federal Election Commission contended the soft money ban should be upheld.
Joining the RNC in the lawsuit were the California Republican Party, San Diego County Republican Party and RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The court also rejected their arguments that the law’s soft money ban shouldn’t apply to their fundraising for various activities.
The RNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling, including whether it will appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said Friday that the conservative group SpeechNow.org can collect unlimited donations from individuals for ads it plans to run independently of candidates, in line with a recent Supreme Court ruling. But the group will have to periodically file reports with the FEC detailing its fundraising and spending and follow other rules that apply to political committees, the appeals court said.
SpeechNow.org wanted to operate free of the fundraising and many of the disclosure and organizational requirements that the FEC places on political committees. It believes the FEC’s political action committee rules, including requirements that it have a treasurer and periodically file fundraising and itemized spending reports, are too onerous, Bert Gall, one of its lawyers, said Friday.
“The PAC administrative and organizational requirements do not allow any organization to be as nimble as it needs to be,” Gall said. He said the group wanted to file disclosure and spending reports only after it ran election-time ads attacking or promoting particular candidates.
The two rulings are the first major campaign finance decisions since the Supreme Court said earlier this year that corporations, unions and groups of individuals can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing candidates – as long as they do it independently of candidates. The high court so far has upheld campaign finance disclosure rules and the McCain-Feingold law’s ban on the raising and spending of soft money by national party committees and presidential and congressional candidates.
SpeechNow.org is considering whether to appeal the disclosure requirement ruling to the Supreme Court, Gall and Brad Smith, another of its attorneys and a former FEC commissioner, said Friday.
“I can assure you that issue isn’t going to go away whether it’s appealed in SpeechNow or not,” Smith said, adding that the group views the FEC reporting requirements as an unconstitutional burden on its free speech.
Neither the Supreme Court ruling nor Friday’s appeals court decision changed the donation and spending restrictions placed on political action committees, which can contribute directly to congressional and presidential candidates and national party committees. Spending that PACs coordinate with candidates or parties also is not affected.
PACs can still accept only limited donations from individuals and other PACs and give or spend limited amounts in concert with campaigns and party committees.
The Federal Election Commission had no immediate comment on either ruling.
—
Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opinions.pl?2010
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201003/08-5223-1236837.pdf
© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Not finding much in the MSM about this, yet, but I am guessing it is because the ruling just came down. Will be intersted to see the follow up.
Other posts about this here and here.
Tags: Associated Press, business, California Republican Party, campaign finance, campaign spending, donations, FEC, Federal Election Commission, McCain-Feingold, Michael Steele, RNC, San Diego County Republican Party, SpeechNow.org, Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
C-SPAN’s Online Archive
Mar 16, 2010 journalism, news
C-SPAN plans to announce tomorrow that they have been uploading every minute of video they have from 1987. Around 160,000 hours. They have roughly 10,000 more hours to add between the year 1979 (when the network began) and 1987.
What is going to be key here is the searchability.
From the NYT article:
One of the Web site’s features, the Congressional Chronicle, shows which members of Congress have spoken on the House and Senate floors the most, and the least. Each senator and representative has a profile page.
This is sure to bring a smile to many journalists faces and a frown to many politicians.
The LA Times coverage was a snarky blog post.
Tags: archives, C-Span, LA Times, Mediaite, New York Times, NYT, online archives, video archives
Not that anyone reads magazines…
Mar 12, 2010 journalism, news, storytelling, writing
You should. Just most people don’t.
I had a video heavy posting day the other day and apparently today’s theme is documentaries. I will be posting about the one I watched last night a little later. But to break it up, I wanted to post this year’s ASME’s 2010 National Magazine Awards finalists.
I’m sure most of these can be found online.
(Aka: something to read while at my day job.)
Tags: 2010, 2010 National Magazine Awards, ASME, magazine, National Magazine Awards
2009 Polk Award for citizen journalism?
Feb 19, 2010 journalism, news, video
So the George Polk Awards in Journalism were announced the other day. Amongst the winners for 2009 there was something curious that I had mixed feelings about. The George Polk Award for Videography.
The anonymous individuals responsible for recording the shooting death of 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan at a June protest in Tehran, Iran, and uploading the video to the Internet. The video became a rallying point for the reformist opposition in Iran.
Here is the disturbing and horrifically sad video:
Here is the announcement in full:
The George Polk Award for Videography will recognize the efforts of the people responsible for recording the death of 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan at a June protest in Tehran, Iran, and uploading the video to the Internet. Ms. Agha-Soltan reportedly was shot by a pro-government militiaman. The video, which shows the woman collapsing to the ground and being attended to by several men as she lay dying on the street, became a rallying point for the reformist opposition in Iran after it was broadcast over the Internet. Seen by millions as it spread virally across the Web, the images quickly gained the attention of international media.
Here’s what I do like: that it is an award to the anonymous AND it is in effect the first time such a prestigious journalism award has been given to a citizen journalist and not a traditional news outlet or journalist. This is high significant and a HUGE leap in what I believe is the right and inevitible new direction we are headed in.
Here’s what I don’t like: it is the equivalent of awarding the winner of America’s Funniest Home Videos the Oscar for Best Picture. There’s no real skill or talent involved. It was just someone in the right place at the right time with a video camera. (This is to take NOTHING away from or to minimize the life and death of Neda Agha-Soltan or to diminish the bravery it to be and film in Iran at that time and under those conditions. I am talking strictly in a journalistic sense.)
I just feel it does a disservice to the title “journalists.” I feel like it does more to further the idea that just because you have a blog, camera and/or video camera that you are a journalist. Granted, armed with these things you have the potential to be a journalist, but the fact you use them and may even occasionally cover or catch real news does not propel you into the field or earn anyone the title of journalist. I think part of the evidence of this mislead belief being a slippery slope is the sheer number of talking heads on television, news programs and news stations that purport to be journalistic in nature or delivering the news when they are really only their to further their own agenda and there is very little legwork if any to uncover the truth. No, even an expensive camera and expensive suit does not make you a journalist.
I was talking with George recently about the National Enquirer being considered for a Pulitzer for their breaking the news about John Edward’s mistress and love-child. Essentially, he pointed out that just because you break a story doesn’t mean that it is journalistic in nature. Yes, he conceded, National Enquirer got the scoop but he felt that eligibility should hinge on more than just that. A Pulitzer was for the gathering of a story, the craft of putting it together and the disseminating of the assembled piece. Which the Enquirer fell short of. I think there’s parallels between this video and the National Enquirer consideration. (Care to weigh in George?)
So what does make someone a journalist? This question will elicit as many different and varied responses as what’s the best ice cream out there? (Ben & Jerry’s Crème Brulée if you really wanted to know the truth.) I think it simply would have to be someone who knows, believes in and adheres to certain practices and standards of the trade with a commitment to pursue and tell the truth. And I think the brave soul who shot this video does not meet this criteria.
So back to the award. While I do think it was a huge and necessary step in the right direction, one that I would rather have and disagree with than not have at all, while I appreciate the sentiment and nod, I can’t help but feel it might of missed its target.
Tags: 2009, awards, George Polk, George Polk Awards in Journalism, Iran, Neda Agha-Soltan, protest, Tehran
Anatomy of an Assassination
Hold the fuck up.
This is too crazy not to post.
An video of an alleged multi-person hit team, plotting and carrying out an assassination in Dubai.
I came across this at Wired and subsequently in the New York Times.
As someone that reads a fair amount of non-fiction international intelligence and covert operations books, this was breathtaking. Even if you allow for the possibility that some or all of it may not be true, I couldn’t peel my eyes away for the 27+ minutes.
The Wired piece discussed more of the specifics of how this allegedly was carried out. They also pointed out (thank god) the hole in this theory/accusation that you could drive an 18-wheeler through.
I liked the NYT piece because it covered possible political ramifications between countries. And it got extra points for including a quote about passports in a phonebooth… Or maybe I get credit for knowing the reference.
I thought it was interesting because when it comes to international covert operations, you never really can tell the truth from the intentional misdirection. (ProPublica just ran this piece the other day, suggesting “a 50 percent accuracy rate in an intelligence story was pretty good.”) Even when viewing the video for the first time in awe, I thought it was absolutely possible that the mere suggestion of what it was, coupled with some editing and zero percent truth or fact, could lead me to the same conclusion about this alleged assassination squad and their plotting, shadowing, executing and disappearance. The NYT piece went so far as to call the team “clumsy.” Was the team a bunch of bungling agents, or is it simply a sign of the times that an entire assassination plot would be caught on tape in a place like Dubai?
It’s interesting how something such as a videotape, while once thought to be ironclad proof, now often evokes more questions than answers and is rarely the last word.
Tags: assassination, Dubai, Hamas, hotel, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, Mossad, New York Times, NYT, ProPublica, Wired
Who Polices the Philadelphia Police?
Feb 4, 2010 journalism, news, philly
I read this cover story by Andrew Thompson in the City Paper today.
Ugh.
I read things like this and similar to my other post about another article, I wonder why I live here. It’s not the fact that it happens but the systematic and system-wide institutional lack of addressing of the problem.
And the thin facade of doing something about the problem, by creating committees and then not holding the people who head these committees responsible for not doing their job of taking a look into these abuses of power.
- The Police Advisory Committee, supposedly and independent body to review disciplinary matters and penalties as well as enforce guidelines, has not released a report since 2004. The executive director since 2005, William Johnson, says this is because, “cannot release any information about an investigation or its conclusion without the consent of the complainant.” Convenient. And ridiculous.
- The governmental counterpart to this, the Integrity & Accountability Office, has not released a report in two years. The head of the agency, Curtis Douglas, claims the reports are “internal to my office, and subject of discussion between the police commissioner and myself.” Convenient. And ridiculous.
- The city’s blatant and repeated refusal to hand over records and documents when asked via right-to-know requests.
(I tried to dig up links, emails and phone numbers for the above people and bodies, but couldn’t locate anything quickly. Feel free to pass any information on.)
Interestingly too, I was curious about the complexities and possible conflicts of writing this, from an editorial standpoint as well as from a journalist’s perspective. The online article directed me to EIC Brian Howard’s addressing of this here. I will probably shoot Thompson an email too about his methodology and process. God knows they don’t teach us shit like this in journalism school at Temple.
I thought the piece was pretty fair. It didn’t condemn all cops or give all complaints merit. But I did think it begged a very poignant question.
After all, Officer Corcoran was not punished for his treatment of Foley in a highly populated area, where his actions were witnessed by dozens of tourists and diners. Just imagine what happens in the city’s darker crevices.
Tags: Andrew Thompson, City Paper, Integrity & Accountability Office, Philadelphia, police, Police Advisory Committee
Lapse time/Time lapse
Jan 25, 2010 news
Miracle on the Hudson Airbus salvage.
Very dramatic music.
Tags: Airbus A320, Miracle on the Hudson, salvage, time lapse
Glimmer of hope for corporate law
Jan 22, 2010 news
Look at the new kid on the block.
You go girl…
From the WSJ:
Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON — In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.
During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court’s majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.
Sonia Sotomayor
But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong — and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.
Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”
After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.
“Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of [her] first questions,” said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.
“I don’t want to draw too much from one comment,” says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it “doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded.”
For centuries, corporations have been considered beings apart from their human owners, yet sharing with them some attributes, such as the right to make contracts and own property. Originally, corporations were a relatively rare form of organization. The government granted charters to corporations, delineating their specific functions. Their powers were presumed limited to those their charter spelled out.
“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1819 case. “It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.”
But as the Industrial Revolution took hold, corporations proliferated and views of their functions began to evolve.
In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because “we are all of opinion that it does.”
That seemingly off-hand comment reflected an “impulse to shield business activity from certain government regulation,” says David Millon, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.
“A positive way to put it is that the economy is booming, American production is leading the world and the courts want to promote that,” Mr. Millon says. Less charitably, “it’s all about protecting corporate wealth” from taxes, regulations or other legislative initiatives.
Subsequent opinions expanded corporate rights. In 1928, the court struck down a Pennsylvania tax on transportation corporations because individual taxicab drivers were exempt. Corporations get “the same protection of equal laws that natural persons” have, Justice Pierce Butler wrote.
From the mid-20th century, though, the court has vacillated on how far corporate rights extend. In a 1973 case before a more liberal court, Justice William O. Douglas rejected the Butler opinion as “a relic” that overstepped “the narrow confines of judicial review” by second-guessing the legislature’s decision to tax corporations differently than individuals.
Today, it’s “just complete confusion” over which rights corporations can claim, says Prof. William Simon of Columbia Law School.
Even conservatives sometimes have been skeptical of corporate rights. Then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist dissented in 1979 from a decision voiding Massachusetts’s restriction of corporate political spending on referendums. Since corporations receive special legal and tax benefits, “it might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere,” he wrote.
On today’s court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court’s conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. “Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.
But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights,” Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.
How far Justice Sotomayor pursues the theme could become clearer when the campaign-finance decision is delivered, probably by year’s end.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.c
Tags: corporate law, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court, Wall Street Journal, wsj
Campaign spending is now a free for all
Jan 21, 2010 news
Unfuckingfathomable
I’m putting this all here before it goes behind a firewall.
I’m pretty disheartened and speechless.
I’m almost as stupified as when Bush won. Both times.
Read the Supreme Court ruling here.
From the NYT:
Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 21, 2010Filed at 12:26 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The decision could drastically alter who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in this year’s crucial midterm elections.
By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the decades-old law that said companies and labor unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
”The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, ”The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year’s congressional elections.
”It’s the Super Bowl of bad decisions,” said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.
The opinion goes to the heart of laws dating back to the Gilded Age when Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 banning corporations from donating money directly to federal candidates. Though that prohibition still stands, the same can’t be said for much of the century-long effort that followed to separate politics from corporate money.
The decision’s most immediate effect is to permit corporate and union-sponsored political ads to run right up to the moment of an election, and to allow them to call for the election or defeat of a candidate. In presidential elections and in highly contested congressional contests, that could mean a dramatic increase in television advertising competing for time and public attention.
In the long term, corporations, their industry associations and labor unions are free to tap their treasuries to assist candidates, although the spending may not be coordinated with the candidates.
”It’s going to be the Wild Wild West,” said Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney who has represented several GOP presidential campaigns. ”If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts … it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader who filed the first lawsuit challenging the McCain-Feingold law, praised the court for ”restoring the First Amendment rights” of corporations and unions. ”By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers,” McConnell said.
The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.
Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained ”the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Kennedy, who dissented from the rulings the court overturned Thursday, said, ”No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”
Stevens, in a 90-page opinion that dwarfed Kennedy’s, complained that the court majority overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.
”Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law,” Stevens said.
The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.
But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.
The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.
The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.
The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor’s first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.
The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors. The justices filed five separate opinions totaling 176 pages.
——
Associated Press writers Jesse J. Holland and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
From the WaPo:
Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.
By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 1:40 PMA divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept away decades of legislative efforts to restrict the role of corporations in election campaigns, ruling that severe restrictions on corporate spending are inconsistent with the First Amendment’s protection of political speech.
The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority.
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
President Obama sharply criticized the decision, saying it gives “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics” and represents “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
In a statement released by the White House, Obama said the ruling “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.” He said he was instructing his administration “to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue” and coordinate with Democratic and Republican leaders on a “forceful response.”
The decision upends the court’s precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago. It seems likely to apply to the political role of labor unions as well.
The decision does not address the restriction on direct contributions to candidates, and it upholds disclosure requirements for groups that mount advertising campaigns for and against candidates.
The far-reaching ruling marks a triumph for groups that have fought the McCain-Feingold provisions, formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
It also is a telling reminder of how quickly a court can change. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supported the constitutionality of the act in 2003. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and O’Connor’s replacement, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have supported each challenge to the law since they have joined the court. They supported Kennedy’s opinion, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The court’s liberal bloc, which included new Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the case, dissented. Justice John Paul Stevens took more than 20 minutes to read a dissent from the bench, a move justices reserve for emphasizing their disagreement.
“A radical change in the law,” Stevens called the decision. He said Thursday’s majority rejects the decisions of Congress dating from 1907 and “the overwhelming majority of justices who have served on this court.”
He said the five-member majority are the only ones who believe corporate money in electoral politics should be increased, rather than controlled. Sotomayor and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined his 90-page dissent.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who co-wrote the 2002 campaign reform law with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said he was “disappointed” by the decision. But Feingold went further, calling it “a terrible mistake” and saying it ignored “important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent.”
“Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president,” Feingold added
Both senators noted, though, that the court had retained the law’s ban on so-called soft money contributions.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business group, said the ruling provides “clarity and predictability” for corporations, unions and nonprofit groups seeking to take part in the political process.
“Today’s ruling protects the First Amendment rights of organizations across the political spectrum, and is a positive for the political process and free enterprise,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the chamber’s litigation center.
But Fred Wertheimer, a veteran campaign reform activist who heads Democracy 21, called the ruling “a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court.”
“In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from ‘influence-buying’ corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five Supreme Court Justices today came down in favor of American corporations,” Wertheimer said. “With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.”
From LA Times:
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
January 21, 2010 | 9:28 a.m.
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.
david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
From WSJ:
Supreme Court Reverses Limits on Campaign Spending
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate political spending, overturning two precedents in a ruling likely to affect campaigning in the 2010 elections.
President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall street and other interests, and said he would work with lawmakers to craft a “forceful response.”
The ruling underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush’s two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority in ruling that a central provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations from funding political messages in the run-up to elections.
“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion.
The McCain-Feingold law aimed to rein in independent campaign spending by corporations and unions—that is, advertisements that the corporations or unions buy on their own to advocate for or against a candidate.
McCain-Feingold required that they channel their campaign spending by creating a special fund, known as a political action committee, which can accept donations from employees, shareholders and other affiliates. Advocates argued that the law was a valid way to prevent special-interest funds from distorting elections.
But Justice Kennedy wrote that the effort to divide corporate political spending into legal and illegal forms chilled political speech. “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” he wrote. “This is unlawful.”
Federal law has long barred corporations from contributing directly to federal political candidates, and Thursday’s ruling keeps that restriction in place.
The decision voids a key provision of the signature legislative achievement of Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who worked with Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to draft the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that informally carries their names.
Justice John Paul Stevens—part of the majority in the two opinions that were overruled—led the court’s four liberals in a dissent that stretched to 90 pages.
He called the majority opinion “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have…fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
Mr. Obama, in a statement Thursday, said: “The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington, while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”
The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film, but the election commission called it an “electioneering communication” subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions.
While nonprofits can be exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limit their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold because it accepted business contributions. Many nonprofit advocacy groups that have corporate form are also affected by Thursday’s ruling, as well as labor unions and for-profit corporations.
A lawyer for Citizens United, Theodore Olson, said, “The vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups–like Citizens United–or small businesses.” The ruling, he said, “enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich.”
In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the provision that was struck down Thursday, in a 5-4 decision that, in turn, relied on a 6-3 opinion written in 1990 by Justice Thurgood Marshall upholding a similar state campaign law.
Justice Kennedy dissented from the 1990 decision, and his opinion Thursday overruling it vindicated the position he took then. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who also dissented in 1990, had changed her view by 2003 and joined the majority to uphold the McCain-Feingold provision. Her successor was Justice Alito, who provided the fifth conservative vote to make Thursday’s majority.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats called for legislation to reinstate the ban on direct campaign spending by corporations, or at least to modify it in a way that would better withstand a constitutional challenge.
“This will allow the biggest corporations in the United States to engage in the buying and selling of elections,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who is in charge of the party’s efforts to get Democrats elected in the House.
“This is poisonous to our democracy,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.). Mr. Schumer said the Senate Rules Committee, of which he is chairman, will hold hearings in the next several weeks aimed at crafting legislation to respond to the ruling. He said he hoped to have a law in place in time for congressional elections this November.
Although the Supreme Court broke along familiar philosophical lines, the case itself scrambled the ideological deck. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO both urged the court to strike down the provision, as did the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association. Sen. McCain and the Democratic National Committee both argued for the law’s constitutionality.
The ruling not only strikes down the federal requirement, it also calls into question similar provisions enacted by nearly half the states. Montana, which adopted restrictions on corporate electioneering a century ago, filed a brief on behalf of more than two dozen states seeking to protect their own power to regulate campaign finance.
The court reached broad agreement on one lesser point, finding that the McCain-Feingold provision requiring political messages to disclose their funder was constitutional. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from that holding. He cited reports that backers of a 2008 California measure abolishing same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, were harassed by their opponents.
—Martin Vaughan and Henry J. Pulizzi contributed to this article.Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Tags: business, campaign finance, campaign spending, donations, LA Times, NYT, Supreme Court, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
