Supreme Court cites 1st Amendment to US Constitution as it rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns
HOT reacts strongly to this ruling, because our Constitution is under attack by moneyed special interests
and there are implications for both Texas homeowners and National Security. 

US Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns

By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 01/22/2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866.html?hpid=topnews

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept aside decades of legislative restrictions on the role of corporations in political campaigns, ruling that companies can dip into their treasuries to spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates.

The decision shakes the foundation of corporate limitations on federal and state elections that stretch back a century, and prompted sharp partisan reaction. Republican leaders, still celebrating Tuesday's Senate upset in Massachusetts, cheered the ruling as a victory for free speech and predicted a surge in corporate support for GOP candidates in November's midterm elections.

President Obama sharply criticized the ruling, however, calling it "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money," and vowed to "develop a forceful response" with congressional leaders from both parties. The court's decision was handed down on the same morning that Obama riled Wall Street by proposing tough new restrictions on the nation's largest banks.

In a 5-4 decision, the majority cast its ruling as a spirited defense of the First Amendment, concluding that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. Corporations had been banned since 1947 from using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates, a restriction that the justices ruled unconstitutional.

"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."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the ruling will "protect the Constitution's First Amendment rights of free speech and association."

Changing court

The decision up-ends the court's precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, which the justices declared constitutional just six years ago. The ruling seems certain to apply to labor unions as well, although they are not explicitly mentioned in the majority's opinion.

Until now, companies were generally limited to raising money through political action committees, which are subject to contribution limits. Now they are free to use their profits to advertise for or against candidates, although they must still disclose their role. The decision does not address a ban on companies contributing directly to candidates.

The far-reaching ruling marks a triumph for those who have fought the McCain-Feingold provisions, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other business and conservative groups. It also overturns laws in two dozen states limiting corporate expenditures in local races.

The decision is a telling reminder of how quickly the high court has changed. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supported the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold 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 joining the court. They supported the ruling announced Thursday, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

That the court even considered such a broad challenge to corporate spending was a surprise. The case centers on a scathing 90-minute movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton produced by the conservative group Citizens United during her 2008 run for president.

A lower court said the film ran afoul of a McCain-Feingold provision that forbids corporations, unions and special interest groups from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that refer to a candidate for federal office during election season. The high court chose last year to broaden the scope of the case to include constitutional questions raised in a 1990 decision, which was overturned by Thursday's ruling.

Leading the court's dissenting liberal bloc, Justice John Paul Stevens called the decision "a radical change in the law" that ignores "the overwhelming majority of justices who have served on this court." Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined in Stevens's 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. Feingold went further, calling it "a terrible mistake" and saying it ignored "important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent."

Increasing influence

Democrats and campaign-finance reform activists predicted the ruling would further increase the influence of groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is now free to spend an unlimited amount of money on ads explicitly attacking candidates. Even before Thursday's ruling, the Chamber had announced a "massive effort to support pro-business candidates" in the fall elections following a record year of lobbying against health-care reform, financial regulations and other Democratic proposals.

"With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

Other campaign-finance experts were more cautious in their analysis, arguing that most corporations have little desire to get involved in the muck of individual elections and are happy to continue using lobbying and campaign contributions as their main tools of influence. But many experts agreed that those same corporations may now give more money to trade associations to fund campaign advertising.

Doug Pinkham, president of the Public Affairs Council, said the decision could lead to the creation of a new wave of single-issue political groups, including some formed by sitting lawmakers.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and other Democrats vowed to push for new restrictions on corporate political spending, including limits for companies with government contracts; shareholder approval of expenditures; and a proposal to make chief executives appear in ads approving their content. Another group of lawmakers is also pushing legislation to match small donations with public financing.

ACTION ALERT!!!

Our friends at TexPIRG ask that you participate in their Action Alert and contact your Congressional representative to demand that they support efforts by Rep. Van Hollen, Sen. Schumer and the White House to protect our democracy from the implications of this decision.

A HOT REACTION from Homeowners of Texas:

Our Constitution and system of government is under attack by moneyed special interests - Wall Street, big banks, big builders, big oil, big auto, and big insurance companies. They now have even more power to buy political influence.

With the stroke of a pen and no public debate the US Supreme Court swept aside 100 years of laws restricting corporate funding of political campaigns. What might this mean for Texas homeowners and the nation as a whole?

LEGALIZED BRIBERY - The US Supreme Court, in the name of Free Speech, just legalized Bribery in the form of political contributions. A Bribe, according to Webster’s, is “Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.” Unlike anonymous political contributions funneled through PACs, direct corporate contributions (bribes) can determine both the outcomes of elections and the political decisions effecting corporate interests, and that’s where the real danger lies.

FREE SPEECH - The Court argued that Corporations have the same legal right to free speech as a person, but we can’t find where the Constitution equates money with Free Speech. The right to petition the Government can be done with no money at all, but the Court gives those with more money more Free Speech by equating corporate money with Free Speech. This seems to be the antithesis of “One Man, One Vote” and “Fair and equal representation for all.”

CORPORATION AS PERSON - “The Corporation” is an award-winning Canadian documentary that describes the nature, evolution, impacts and future of the modern business corporation and the increasing role it plays in society and our everyday lives. Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 6 examine the corporation as having the rights of a person and It apply personality tests to conclude that it behaves as a sociopath or even a psychopath. Corporations are legally bound to serve the interests of shareholders and NOT society.

CHECKS & BALANCES - Legislating from the bench circumvents the system of checks & balances that our forefathers put in place with three branches of government: Executive, Legislative & Judicial. By giving moneyed special interests more power to influence political candidates and judges, our whole political system is in jeopardy. Forget debates between Left & Right, Liberal & Conservative, and Democrat & Republican. If corporate money can now more easily co-opt any political party, the new debate may now be between Corporate Sociopaths & Society.

UNBALANCED MEDIA IMPACT - Consider the advertising power of big corporations or groups like the US Chamber of Commerce versus that of individual consumers and small businesses. That power extends beyond the dollar value and includes reaction time - the ability to place last minute ads prior to important elections or decisions. Grass roots don’t react as quickly.

QUESTIONABLE TIMING - Does it seem odd that a decision overturning 100 years of law and having such a profound effect would be decided with no public debate? Apparently the Court decided to take up the issue right after Obama was elected and the Senate got a 60% super majority. The final decision was handed down just days after the Haiti earthquake when attention of the media and citizen activists was rightfully diverted elsewhere. Yes, it's in very poor taste to imply that this was intentional, but it was convenient.

ELECTED VS. APPOINTED JUDGES - Texas elects its judges, making them susceptible to influence from campaign contributions. We often cite the example of Houston homebuilder Bob Perry’s contributions to all 9 Texas Supreme Court justices and a critical case they decided in his favor. Certainly campaign contributions are not the only ways to influence decisions, meaning appointed judges aren’t immune.

CLASSED SOCIETY - The Courts' decision circumvents the fundamental principles of our Democratic Republic, giving disproportionate influence to the rich. Corporate CEOs can easily make 1,000 times more than the average employee, assuming $50M/year for CEOs and $50K/year for the workers. This imbalance is clearly not in the spirit of democracy.

UNAMERICAN - What’s worse is that multi-national corporations no longer consider themselves to be American companies. They serve global markets and self-interests, yet the Court’s decision gives them greater influence on our government than average Americans. The Court also opened a loop hole for foreign control of our government and a breach of national security. Is this part of The New World Order that conspiracy theorists talk about? 

BAILOUT MONEY - The companies that got billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money can now turn around and use that money against us by bribing officials. This includes big oil, big banks and home builders, Wall Street, insurance companies, and car makers. Impeachment anyone? Amend the Constitution? With their new ability to buy political candidates and influence decisions, that’s unlikely. Maybe an outright Revolt is in order.

BIG BUILDERS - From a new article we posted today, even before the Supreme Court decision “The big builders decided they wanted a more ‘direct connection to lawmakers’ after their experience lobbying the government for aid to combat the industry's protracted down turn.” (i.e. the Homebuyer Tax Credit) The article describes how they’re breaking ranks from smaller builders and forming their own industry association. We added comments to make the connection to the Supreme Court decision.

RELEVANT COMMENTS & LINKS:

• FOR SALE: "Large country in fair-to-good condition with hard-working, innovative yet generally reactionary, short-sighted and self-centered citizens. This is a great deal for those with the money to buy now!"
• Public Outraged: A Washington Post-ABC News poll on 2/17/10 shows broad disapproval (80%) of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to give corporations the right to spend unlimited money to influence elections.
• Public Citizen is promoting a Constitutional amendment to make the 1st Amendment apply to individuals and NOT corporations.
• FreeSpeechForPeople.org is a campaign sponsored to restore the First Amendment's free speech guarantees for the people, not corporations, and to preserve and promote democracy and self-government.
• Change-Congress.org believes politicians should work for the people, not special interests.
• CitizenVOX.org has several good videos on this High Court decision, including an exceptionally powerful one (2 parts) by MSNBC's left-leaning Keith Olbermann.
• Big Builders break from smaller ones, skip International Builder's Show, and start their own trade association so they can get a "direct connection to lawmakers."
• NPR Reports: Supreme Court eases campaign finance curbs | Supreme Court rips up campaign finance laws
• NPR Blog: No more ban on corporate campaign money
• Move to Amend: a campaign to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution and declare that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
• Senator Evan Bayh: In an op-en letter to the New York Times he explained why he is leaving, voiced his concerns with the disfunctional Congress and recent Supreme Court decision, and suggested ways of fixing our political ills.
• Huffington Post: Contrasts total spending in the 2008 election cycle ($5.3 Billion TOTAL: Obama $730M, Avg.Senate incumbent $8.7M, Avg.House incombent $1.4M) with available corporate assets (Exxon profits $85 Billion, Lipitor revenues $27B, Goldman Sachs 2009 salary+bonuses $16.2B, Lockheed's 2008 defense contracts $15B, 2006 Cigarette advertising $12.5B, Microsoft cash on hand $33.4B).

U.S. Supreme Court gets new robes