Litigation

Editorials Scathing on Citizens United

By Peter Hardin

(Supreme Court photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.)

Editorial boards from several leading national newspapers offered scathing critiques of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, alternately denouncing it as wrong-headed law, judicial activism, and an assault on a pillar of democracy.

One of the most blistering critiques came in a New York Times editorial headlined “The Court’s Blow to Democracy,” which concluded the only solution is getting Citizens United overturned:

“With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court?s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

“Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.”

A Washington Post editorial, headlined “Judicial Activism Inc.,” condemned the decision as “unnecessary…wrong…and dangerous:”

“This result was unnecessary because the court’s conservative majority — including supposed exemplars of judicial modesty — lunged to make a broad constitutional ruling when narrower grounds were available. It was wrong because nothing in the First Amendment dictates that corporations must be treated identically to people. And it was dangerous because corporate money, never lacking in the American political process, may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy. “

In the Wall Street Journal, however, an editorial cheered the decision, stopping just short of elation. Describing Tuesday’s special Senate election victory by a

Republican in Massachusetts, and Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, the editorial declared, “In a season of marauding government, the Constitution rides to the rescue one more time.” The editorial concluded with a wish for further relief from the high court:

“Perhaps one day the Court will go even further and overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that was its original sin in tolerating limits on campaign spending. The Court did yesterday uphold disclosure rules, so a sensible step now would be for Congress to remove all campaign-finance limits subject only to immediate disclosure on the Internet. Citizens United is in any event a bracing declaration that Congress’s long and misbegotten campaign-finance crusade has reached a Constitutional dead end.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 22, 2010 (boomark / email).