Litigation

?Citizens United:? Advocates React

By Peter Hardin

Campaign finance reformers condemned the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision Thursday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as mistaken, far-reaching and potentially undermining American democracy, while their political foes hailed what they portrayed as the court’s protection of First Amendment rights. (See earlier Gavel Grab post to learn more about the decision.)

President Obama said the Supreme Court “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

“This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue,” Obama added.

Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat and an author of a 2002 campaign finance law partly at issue in the case, labeled the decision “a terrible mistake.”

The court struck down a key portion of that 2002 law, which barred corporations from spending for political messages on the eve of elections. “Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns,” Feingold was quoted as saying by the New York Times.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, assailed what he called “the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court” and called it “a disaster for the American people, and a dark day for the Supreme Court.”

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky applauded “an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.”

Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general who represented the conservative group that brought the case–Citizens United–told the Wall Street Journal, “The vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups–like Citizens United–or small businesses.” Olson said the ruling “enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich.

Common Cause president Bob Edgar accused the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. of making ” a bad situation worse.” He added, “This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy.” Edgar and some allies predicted the decision would fuel greater interest in legislation called the Fair Elections Now Act, to set up a public financing system for congressional elections.

“Today, basic pillars of American democracy have been undermined ? that elections should not be corrupted by vast corporate wealth and that the voters should be at the center of our democratic system,” said Mary G. Wilson, national president of the League of Women Voters.

Blasting the decision as one that “matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court” was Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying titan in Washington, described the decision as bringing “clarity and predictability” for corporations, unions and nonprofit groups that intend to participate in the political system, the Washington Post reported. Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the Chamber’s litigation center, told the newspaper, “Today’s ruling protects the First Amendment rights of organizations across the political spectrum, and is a positive for the political process and free enterprise.”

Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenburg remarked, “This ruling pours gasoline on the fire of special-interest money that has been overtaking judicial elections.  Interest group spending imperils our right to impartial justice by pressuring judges to rule with one eye on big-money contributors.” You can read his entire statement by clicking here for an earlier post.

Comments by advocacy groups are included in roundup articles at the Washington Post, and at www.scotusblog.com.  Running comments by election law expert Rick Hasen are posted in www.electionlawblog.com. A run of commentaries, including one by  Brandenburg, is available at the American Constitution Society blog. Brandenburg’s commentary is titled, “Citizens United: Silver Linings & Opportunities.”

Among the concerns voiced today was a strong statement by Carole Wagner Vallianos, president of the American Judicature Society, a partner group of Justice at Stake. She said:

“Today?s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission poses another challenge for states that are struggling to insulate their judiciaries from the corrosive effects of money, interest group pressure and partisan politics in judicial elections.  While the Supreme Court?s decision in Citizens United upholds disclosure requirements for independent expenditures in campaigns, it will open the floodgates of corporate and union treasury spending ? particularly in state high court elections, which have come to be dominated by third-party spending in recent election cycles.

“Fortunately, a clear and proven alternative to politicized judicial election systems exists.  Merit selection and retention systems, with strong judicial performance evaluation components, virtually eliminate the need for judges to raise campaign contributions while reducing opportunities for interest groups to exert disproportionate influence over the selection of judges.”

The Center for Political Accountability, a Washington-based non-profit group, offered a different vantage point on the Supreme Court decision, saying it makes “company disclosure and board oversight of political spending .. more critical.” Explained the group’s president, Bruce Freed:

“The Citizens United decision will place companies under immense pressure to use shareholder funds to support candidates, groups and causes whose positions and activities could threaten a company’s reputation and bottom line and shareholder value. We urge companies to resist this pressure by joining with Microsoft, Time Warner, Aetna, Merck, Hewlett-Packard and the 65 other companies that have adopted disclosure and board oversight of their political spending with corporate funds.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 21, 2010 (boomark / email).