Reality Check: Democrats Miss Point on Campaign Spending

AP

Democrats have spent a lot of time hammering the Roberts Court for its 5-4 decision to allow unlimited spending by corporations and unions on political advertising.

"Wasn't it unusual how they got to the point where they can make that decision, based on the facts?" Sen. Russell Feingold pressed Kagan. "It was unusual wasn't it?"

Kagan, of course, defended the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law in the Court, in the case Citizens United v FEC.

Then the President teed up the issue in his January State of the Union address, when he took a shot at the Court, as he put it, overturning nearly 100 years of precedent and for allowing corporations to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. He warned it would also inject foreign corporate money into elections.

And that prompted that dramatic moment, when the cameras caught Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing the words, "that's not true."

But Alito had a point that is still being missed - intentionally or not - by Democrats.

The key issue in Citizens United was whether corporations and unions could directly fund television ads in the weeks leading up to an election, urging the public to vote for or against a political candidate. The Court held that corporations could fund those messages directly, instead of just contributing to a political action committee.

The "100 years of precedent" that President Obama referred to in the State of the Union, refers to the 1907 Tillman Act which banned corporate funding of election campaigns themselves, rather than independent messages about elections. Direct funding to campaigns was not an issue in Citizens United.

So with thanks to my assistant, Georgetown Law grad Tim Middleton, here's our reality check:

Democrats may be furious the Court overturned part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but they aren't being fair when they say the decision gutted a century precedent and is an example of the Roberts Court cozying up to corporations. The case also applied to unions, and as best I can tell, unions seem to contribute more to Democrats.

More from Jan Crawford:

Why is Al Franken on Judiciary?
Low Temps on Day Two of Kagan's Grilling
Watching Kagan: Reality Check
Kagan on Military Recruiting: Reality Check
Kagan Supports Cameras in Supreme Court

Follow Jan Crawford on Twitter
Jan Crawford's Facebook Page

Washington Unplugged: How Did Kagan Do?
Pictures from the Conifirmation Hearing
CBSNews.com Special Report: Elena Kagan

[jimbom121]

No, Jan, you are missing the point. The point is that at a time when we should be getting money out of the political system, the Supreme Court opened the doors to more money coming in.

[wmb1957]

The Supreme Court stood up for free speech.
As much as it may irritate you the first case that decided the person-hood of corporations was in 1816 under the Marshall Court, Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Marshall, like others of his fellow justices had fought in the Revolutionary War. He based his decision on the Constitution and Common Law.

It is a bit much expecting the Supreme Court to overturn that much precedent is shortsighted.

[wmb1957]

The earliest case the Supreme Court overturned in this case had gone against earlier precedent and stated that the decision may not stand in the future, it had much to do with how the FEC handled it.

Kegan in her statements in front of the court in Citizens, answered that the FEC could basically ban anything, books, videos, anything.

That is when the Justices broadened the inquiry.

Kegan basically caused this problem because she didn't have enough sense to realize she was telling the Supreme Court that a state agency had the right to ban anything just because the FEC says so.

[noloyalisti]

If the big corporations have that much money of ours to fund ads and campaigns then they have too much and we need to take it from them.

[warner0683]

It is not your money. It is the stockholders money.

[sjc_1]

40 years ago corporations paid 40% of the national budget, now they pay 7%. For decades they have demanded tax breaks to save jobs and laid people off permanently. Now they fund campaigns to make sure it stays that was. Public Money for Public office can level the playing field.

[afmcalax]

What is even sadder is the Republicans blocking any attempt by the Republicans to force the corporations that fund the message to put their name to the message. Why are Republicans so afraid of truth in advertising? I want to know if companies that I am a customer of are funding politicians I disagree with so I can take my business elsewhere. That is what is called being accountable; something American corporations avoid at all costs.

[warner0683]

This has been debate nd went to the Supreme Court before.

It stretches all the way back to the Federalist papers.

Being anonymous is still protected political speech.

[tstrot]

Half of barry's campaign money was from foreign donors....

[user000049586849302948602]

Um no, you made that up. Prevaricator.

[user000049586849302948602]

Also, what's with the ellipsis?

[tsigili]

The point to me, is that special interests, including corporations, and unions, as well as other "entities", should not be unduly influencing an election, with cash, period. That is a perversion of the election process, and should be prohibited, period.

That goes for direct campaign financing, advertisements, and any other cash based influences, including paying voters to ride buses to the polls, to vote for a specific candidate. (Something the Dems have been known to do!)

[warner0683]

What, Ever thing said influences elections. If nothing unduly influences an election the the candidates and other could only talk about about if butterflies were lovely or not.

[wmb1957]

I'd rather see the politicians not be unduly influenced.
Come to think of it, how come these laws are never about the politicians that are so unduly influenced rather then others.

I am more concerned with the corrupt politicians then how the corps spend their money on advertising on political ads.