Hooray for the Supreme Court. Yes, believe it or not, they actually do deserve some praise. Specifically the members of the majority who recently held that Vermont’s restrictive campaign finance laws violated the First Amendment’s free speech provisions.
This development comes at an opportune time in our political history. Currently, our free speech rights are besieged by politicians using the boogeyman of political corruption to build support for laws which themselves corrupt our political system by limiting our ability to participate in it.
The most egregious national example is the 2001 Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, (AKA McCain-Feingold), which placed severe limits on the ability of Americans, acting as individuals or as groups, to participate in our nation’s political discourse within arbitrary time periods prior to elections. This bill was upheld by a five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court in 2003.
The difference between then and now? Samuel Alito. Sandra Day O’Connor, whom Alito replaced, was the deciding vote in upholding McCain-Feingold, while a few weeks ago Alito was part of the majority that threw out the Vermont statute, (as was newly appointed Chief Justice Roberts).
In other words, thanks to Bush’s Supreme Court appointments, we’re getting a Court that is becoming more interested in protecting freedom of political speech and less interested in allowing government to police how people participate in our political system.
In fact, three of the current justices are on record as wanting to go as far as overturning the Court’s 1976 precedent, Buckley vs. Valeo, which allowed the government to set campaign contribution limits. This means that we now have three justices who think the government has no business regulating political spending or contributions, and two others that thought Vermont’s campaign spending restrictions violated free speech. Good news for those who believe in the First Amendment.
In the meantime the free speech reformers are at it again, this time in court, with two of the original proponents of McCain-Feingold suing the Federal Election Commission for not being restrictive enough of political speech in how it applied the law. Based on the results in the Vermont case, it looks like they may be doing those who care about free speech a favor, perhaps putting us within a year of the Supreme Court revisiting McCain-Feingold and throwing it out altogether.
Article comments
1 - gonzo marx
hey...i'm fine with the Decision, primae facia
to me, it would be most excellent if ALL financial limits were removed, BUT that ONLY registered Voters can supply the donations
otherwise, as it is worded, and as our Society is now, the ONLY ones who "win" are the entities that can funnel HUGE chunks of cash into the political system, either directly of via PAC advertisements
make it transparent, all political donations up on a website within a day of being received, all political ads being required to clearly tell who paid for them
as it is , shitbirds liek the whole "clean coal" fiasco will spend millions on slick ads, but the people with mercury on their trees from the coal smokestacks go unheard
very difficult and complex problem here, and it has been ever since SCOTUS changed the definition of money from "legal tender" to "speech"
but i'm torn, part of me wants a full on and fee wheeling political discourse, it IS good for our Nation...
but with major media being the mainstream of political advertising, and that benig hideously expensive.. it appears the winners are those with the most cash, NOT with the most to say...
here's a Thought, why not give candidates equal and free air time on the public airwaves? that would generate more discourse, eh? and remove the single largest budget eater for any campaign
on and on...
i still just don't see any good Answer, nor am i certain that it is as simple a Question as the original Poster states...
we will see
Excelsior?
2 - Peter J
Gonzo, What defines a corporation or large firm as an individual? Nothing? Maybe? It never occured to me(but I'm a simple person)that I've never heard of a situation where an entity or corporation's right to free speach has been an issue.
If this were the case then, along your line of thinking, we can let them donate infinite sums of money, anonymously, which will all be escrowed and used to pay for all equal media advertising?
They will be acknowledged as the civic minded businesses that we all know that they are and they can back whichever candidate they favor, without saying "I love you $2,000,000. worth"
Now they've done their duty and contributed to the good of our Democratic system (as much money as they want), they'll get their accolades from the American people for giving back to the country which has made their lives quite comfortable and helped make available the advertising for all of the candidates, levelling the playing field so that people can make a fair snd informed decision.
3 - gonzo marx
ok Peter, i'm a bit confused by your comment, but let's try and discuss... you might want to read again...NOWHERE have i said "anonymously"... to the contrary, i make a big point of stating "transparency"...meaning we know where EVERY dollar comes from...
now on to Points...
first, what defines a corporation as an "individual".. well in the legal sense a SCOTUS decision from the late 1800's defined corporations as a legal "person"
but that has nothing to do with what i was trying to say...poorly i guess...
i want to allow transparent unlimited donations from REGISTERED VOTERS... period
and that any "group" or PAC or whatever, can excercise their free speech rights, singly or collectively, as they like... but again, in full transparency and with their sponsorship clearly marked in any advertising... but NO cash donations
that make it a bit clearer?
maybe i'm just too cynical, but to me this decision smacks of a windfall for PACs, and adds even more loopholes for an already corrupt system of financing campaigns
you see, i do NOT see most of these political operatives and operations from EITHER side as "beneficial" or benevolent in ANY way
most wind up being nothing more than scams for getting aroudn the system in much the same manner and technique that Abrahmoff and his cronies used ficticious "non-profit" corps to launder money
but hey, we will see how it turns out, it just makes me very curious that the so-called "conservative" types have reversed their "states rights" position of allowing Vermont to set it's own guidelines so that there coudl be some "activist judges" (kidding, really) legislating for Vermon from the bench
am i the only one that sees the Irony here?
Excelsior?
4 - Peter J
Sorry Gonzo,
That was partly my ignorance on the matter and partly wishful thinking.
My thoughts were based on the McCain-Feingold-Thomson Bill which I did a poor job of referencing and not remembering that it did not pass. That was my Ignorance. My wishful thinking was that it did pass.
I need to keep up.
5 - gonzo marx
no worries Peter, open and honest discussion is a GOOD thing...
thanks for checking back in, as well as for being Man enough to fess up and speak openly
anytime i can help, just shout... you just made it into the "good guy" category, imo
Excelsior?
6 - Peter J
Higher and Higher
7 - Andy Marsh
As far as the unlimited donations...or spending...or whatever...is it really a good idea to allow the outrageously rich to steer our political campaigns? I'm asking here...
8 - gonzo marx
Andy, you raise an excellent point, which is why i stress tranparency as crucial...
also registered voters
there's my Trick, this means , quite simply, that you have to be registered for the race you woudl be donating to... which stops, let's say Bill Gates... who would be registered in Washington state... from donating to a Carolina senate race... and what he donates to qualified races in Washington state, woudl be clearly visible to everyone involved... even other voters
if our politicians are going to be bought.. i at least want to know who has the receipt, eh?
oh ... another one i woudl like to have seriously investigated is the practice fo "bundling" donations... this is when some fundraiser hands a campaign a big check, and says it's a bunch of smaller donations... lots of room for creative abuse here.. i'd like to see a receipt from each and every donation itemized
just some Thoughts
Excelsior?
9 - Bliffle
This decision comes perilously close to outright legalization of bribery: one could argue that offering a bribe is simply a matter of Free Speech. Even perjury, lieing under oath, could be construed as Free Speech.
And the legal fiction of Corporation As Person (the famous Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific case), which enables individuals to shield themselves from prosecution, is on shakey ground.
Spending money is not the same thing as giving speeches.
Limiting campaign financing doesn't prevent anyone from speaking freely, it just limits how big a megaphone he has. Free Speech does not mean one has the right to impose his Free Speaking on unwilling listeners.