Citizens United v. FEC - an update

If you’ll recall (way back when, i.e. September) we talked about an interesting Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Well, the highest court in the land finally came to a decision, and not one that I am particularly fond of. I know, I’m not usually that blunt in my blog, but I have to admit, my hackles are up.

As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).

Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.

The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.

To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.

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/