On Thursday the Supreme Court released the much-anticipated opinions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [PDF], the case arising out of Hillary: The Movie. By a 5-4 vote and in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court struck down portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which prohibited corporations–and, by implication, labor unions as well, though this question was not squarely presented by Citizens United–from spending general treasury money for some (but not all) types of election advocacy. The decision overrules two of the Court’s most recent pronouncements in this area, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2002) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990).
There has already been significant media coverage of the decision and much more is surely on its way. A few links:
- NY Times editorial page calls the ruling “disastrous” and “a blow to democracy.”
- The Wall Street Journal notes that the decision underscores the importance of George W. Bush appointees John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito — which is probably a fair statement, as Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority in McConnell (though she dissented in Austin).
- Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason has a post at The Volokh Conspiracy which argues that “restrictions on corporate speech reduce political equality,” and notes that corporations (including unions) are simply tools used to exercise speech. This reminds me of an argument advanced by Professor Frances E. Lee of the University of Maryland that “special interests” are more accurately termed “organized interests,” and that there may in fact be more danger of inequality from geographic alignment than corporate alignment.
- The Christian Science Monitor calls on watchdog groups to increase their vigilance for wrongdoing.
This post was written by Jeffrey M. Nye.
