Does Supreme Court Decision Turn America Over to Corporations?
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
This historic story by the Tribune was placed on the front page, but it could hardly be found. It was buried in the lower right hand corner.
In a decision decried by some as akin to hanging a giant “for sale” sign on federal elections and hailed by others as a victory for free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court swept aside a decades-old ban on corporate and union spending to sway voters.
The 5-4 ruling is a “huge deal,” campaign finance experts in Utah said, noting that it likely will mean substantially more money pouring into November’s midterm elections, already being framed as a referendum on President Barack Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress.
Roberts and Scalia, and almost all Republicans, have decried ‘activist’ judges for years and now they’ve eaten the whole cake and it’s going to give the country an upset stomach. We could be regurgitating this one for a long time to come.
Money talks, democracy walks.
The country’s high court, which shifted to the right with then-President George W. Bush’s two appointments, rolled back a 63-year-old law barring corporations and unions from buying ads that promote or attack federal candidates. It also dismantles a ban in the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act on issue-oriented ads by companies or unions 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
“It’s a very substantial reversal of decades of law,” said David Magleby, a dean and professor of law at Brigham Young University who has authored more than a half dozen books on campaign finance.
“It has the potential of allowing corporations — for instance, a Microsoft — to spend millions and millions in particular races,” Magleby said.
That kind of mega-influence could dwarf a candidate’s ability to fight back, Magleby added.
Dave Hansen, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, liked the free-speech aspect of Thursday’s ruling, but agreed that campaign spending would escalate and a candidate’s stance could get muddied as a result.
“If you have a number of outside groups spending money in campaigns, the message gets less clear than one voice,” Hansen said.
State Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland called the ruling “a step backward” for accountability in elections.
“It puts a ‘for sale’ sign on the whole system,” Holland said. However, he did not see it as a blow against his party, noting that progressive businesses tend to support Democrats.
“As far as the effect on either side, it’s probably a wash,” Holland said. “What I fear the most it that it becomes kind of an incumbency protection program.”
The ruling’s practical effect will be an influx of corporate-financed ads prior to the November election, said Randy Dryer, an attorney with Salt Lake City-based Parsons Behle and Latimer.
Dryer chairs the board of the Washington D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center and also lobbied for strict campaign contribution caps as a member of the Governor’s Commission on Strengthening Democracy.
“The little speaker — the average guy — will find it even more difficult to be heard,” Dryer said. “It’s not a good development.”
Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, worked on the McCain-Feingold legislation and helped co-found the Campaign Legal Center.
“I personally was always concerned about the electioneering communication part of that law which has not been struck down,” Jowers said.
Jowers said he expects little effect on Utah’s congressional races, but GOP candidates across the nation should get a boost in this year’s midterm elections.
Since Thursday’s ruling strikes down a portion of McCain-Feingold and also reverses decades-old Supreme Court decisions, both Jowers and Dryer view it as “activist.”
“It’s a bit ironic,” Dryer said, “coming from the conservative members of the court who decry so-called liberal judges that legislate from the bench.”
The ruling could spawn more litigation.
“Around the country, states with similar laws may be struck down,” Jowers said.
Obama blasts ruling; McConnell lauds it
President Barack Obama » “With its ruling today, 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.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. » “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took 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.”
High court on election finance
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress cannot limit spending on elections by corporations, unions or other organizations. The decision leaves intact bans on companies and unions giving directly to candidates.
$5 billion just a drop in the bucket?
More than $5 billion was spent in 2008 on federal elections, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Supreme Court ruling could open the floodgate on even more campaign cash.