Supreme Court investigates campaign practices
Decision will impact corporate campaign contributions, expressions of free speech
Michael Doyle (McClatchy Newspapers)
Issue date: 9/10/09 Section: World News
WASHINGTON (MCT) - The Obama administration's top lawyer Wednesday withdrew an earlier claim that certain books could be banned under campaign finance restrictions.
The legal retreat, though, didn't mollify conservative Supreme Court justices, who repeatedly challenged limits on corporate campaign expenditures. On a day of several judicial firsts, a divided court appeared poised to overturn at least some campaign restrictions.
"There is no place where an ongoing chill (against speech) is more dangerous than in an election context," stated Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's often a swing vote on the nine-member court.
Joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, Kennedy vigorously pressed against rules that ban corporations from using their funds to pay for campaign activities. At the very least, the questioning during an unusually long and uniquely scheduled oral argument revealed deep-seated judicial skepticism about congressional efforts to regulate campaigns.
"I doubt we can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that don't favor incumbents," Scalia said. "Now, is that excessively cynical of me? I don't think so."
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is giving the Supreme Court the chance to overturn two prior high court decisions on campaign finance rules.
That in itself is unusual. Traditionally, the Supreme Court shies away from overturning precedent. Nor is the challenge to the principle of precedent, or stare decisis, the only unusual aspect of this case, which has prompted an extraordinary 41 amicus briefs from outside parties.
The case, notably, has changed from what it used to look like. It began last year when producers of the anti-Hillary Clinton film "Hillary: The Movie" opposed rules requiring them to reveal their donors. Since then, the case has expanded significantly to directly challenge broad campaign restrictions.
One prior Supreme Court decision now at risk, from 1990, upheld Michigan's ban on corporations using their general treasury funds for "independent expenditures" in support of a candidate. These expenditures are not given directly to a candidate, but instead pay for efforts such as ads and mailings. In a related 2003 case, the court upheld a federal law that banned corporations and unions from directly funding radio and television ads during campaign season.
The legal retreat, though, didn't mollify conservative Supreme Court justices, who repeatedly challenged limits on corporate campaign expenditures. On a day of several judicial firsts, a divided court appeared poised to overturn at least some campaign restrictions.
"There is no place where an ongoing chill (against speech) is more dangerous than in an election context," stated Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's often a swing vote on the nine-member court.
Joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, Kennedy vigorously pressed against rules that ban corporations from using their funds to pay for campaign activities. At the very least, the questioning during an unusually long and uniquely scheduled oral argument revealed deep-seated judicial skepticism about congressional efforts to regulate campaigns.
"I doubt we can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that don't favor incumbents," Scalia said. "Now, is that excessively cynical of me? I don't think so."
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is giving the Supreme Court the chance to overturn two prior high court decisions on campaign finance rules.
That in itself is unusual. Traditionally, the Supreme Court shies away from overturning precedent. Nor is the challenge to the principle of precedent, or stare decisis, the only unusual aspect of this case, which has prompted an extraordinary 41 amicus briefs from outside parties.
The case, notably, has changed from what it used to look like. It began last year when producers of the anti-Hillary Clinton film "Hillary: The Movie" opposed rules requiring them to reveal their donors. Since then, the case has expanded significantly to directly challenge broad campaign restrictions.
One prior Supreme Court decision now at risk, from 1990, upheld Michigan's ban on corporations using their general treasury funds for "independent expenditures" in support of a candidate. These expenditures are not given directly to a candidate, but instead pay for efforts such as ads and mailings. In a related 2003 case, the court upheld a federal law that banned corporations and unions from directly funding radio and television ads during campaign season.
Be the first to comment on this story