Corporations and Unions may now spend as much as they want for political campaigning
The Supreme Court today struck down key elements of McCain-Feingold legislation in a decision that could radically altercampaign finance.
In a broad 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, the Court found unconstitutional provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prevented corporate and labor union money from funding some kinds of political communication.
But the case was given an unusual re-hearing, with new players in the form of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan, and this time it focused on the much broader question of whether corporate spending limits were themselves constitutional.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
(This should help fix politics and change business as usual, right?)
The Supreme Court today struck down key elements of McCain-Feingold legislation in a decision that could radically altercampaign finance.
In a broad 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, the Court found unconstitutional provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prevented corporate and labor union money from funding some kinds of political communication.
But the case was given an unusual re-hearing, with new players in the form of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan, and this time it focused on the much broader question of whether corporate spending limits were themselves constitutional.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independentexpenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McCon-nell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Com-merce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell.
from headnotes:
[ 2. Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20–51.]
Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independentexpenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McCon-nell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Com-merce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell.
from headnotes:
[ 2. Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Given this conclusion, the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. Pp. 20–51.]
(This should help fix politics and change business as usual, right?)
Comment