Ringside Seats to Citizens United v. FEC

We don’t hear much about the Supreme Court unless there’s a vacancy. Traditionally, the court usually chooses to not hear arguments for cases that truly contentious unless they absolutely have to. Or unless they feel like choosing the next president of the United States. Arguably the most powerful of the three branches of government, the buck does not stop with the President, but with the nine Supreme Court Justices who may strike down all those unconstitutional laws that Congress and State Legislatures seem so fond of passing.

Last week, in a rare special session, the Supreme Court heard more arguments in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission). The case was initially heard last March, but apparently has been unable to reach a decision. Citizens United brought suit against the FEC when the FEC and a federal court blocked the airing of Hillary: The Movie during the 2008 election season. You should check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM1z5fTs, it is pretty heinous.

The FEC believes that it had the right to block the airing of the politically charged movie because of language included in campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law). In an attempt to prevent unions or corporations from having more of a voice in elections than the rest of us, the law stipulates that any biased election message, about a candidate, financed by a union or corporation, may not be broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

Seems fair, I guess. I mean, I certainly couldn’t finance the production of a 90 minute documentary about Hillary Clinton, or any other major politician for that matter so the producers, arguably, have more sway over the general public than I do. But is this stifling of freedom of speech?

Can I get a refresher on the 1st Amendment please? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Let’s do it again for good measure, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” I don’t believe it reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech unless you’re a union or a corporation.” Unless you’re going to argue that unions and corporations are not people, and the Constitution and the freedoms afforded therein only apply to individuals (While I’m sure there is a boatload of case law backing up that argument I, for one, am not going to go look for it otherwise I’d be here all week.)

For more fun reading on this issue, check out these articles:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14416613

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/mears.election.laws.1/