The Citizen’s United decision was immediately made a target by some Democrats and campaign finance reformers. President Obama decried it during his State of the Union address and congressional Democrats scrambled to propose legislation to correct perceived wrongs caused by the case[1]. Rhetoric surrounding discussion of the impact of the ruling often focuses on the involvement of corporate money buying influence in the political system to which a common solution is the removal of corporate funds from politics. Some criticize the Supreme Court and individual justices and those who nominated them. Others felt the Court was treating corporations as people. A common tactic was to point out that the decision allows corporations from unpopular or controversial industries (including banking, insurance, pharmaceutical and energy companies) to spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures. However because the Court ruled on the constitutionality of the issues at hand, it is unlikely that a legislative or regulatory fix short of amending the Constitution would be able to alter the decision. A possible option within the legislative or regulatory framework is an emphasis on disclosure requirements, use of which was upheld by the Court.
The Court’s decision caught many observers by surprise. Given the unique context of the challenge brought by Citizens United, it was thought the Court would strike down or limit the electioneering communications provision of BCRA. Instead, the Court invited the parties back to reargue the case and revisited the entire issue of corporate expenditures[2].
The Court’s decision was foreshadowed by the arc of prior cases. Citizen’s United essentially overturned Austin, establishing that discriminating between speakers based on identity (corporate or individual) is unconstitutional. The Citizen’s United decision does not deviate from Buckley’s distinction between contributions and expenditures in the context of corruption and what the government can regulate. Massachusetts Citizens for Life found that certain corporations had the right to speak as themselves, without forming a PAC as other corporations were required to do. Wisconsin Right to Life dramatically altered rules regarding issue ads, increasing the practical value of independent expenditures. Taken together, one can see how the Court’s Citizen’s United decision relates to prior decisions[3].
Return to Common Misconceptions
[1] "Democrats Struggle With Citizens United Ruling - Eliza Newlin Carney." NationalJournal.com. 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/rules-of-the-game/democrats-struggle-with-citizens-united-ruling-20110123>.
[2] "What Citizens United v. FEC Really Means." Public Affairs Council. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://pac.org/blog/what-citizens-united-v-fec-really-means>.
[3] "The Liberal Mythology of an “Activist” Court: Citizens United and Ledbetter." Heritage Foundation. 15 June 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/the-liberal-mythology-of-an-activist-court-citizens-united-and-ledbetter>.
No comments:
Post a Comment