Supreme Court Ruling Will Cause Major Upheaval in Campaigns

By: Jan Crawford
Topics: Supreme Court

(CBS/AP)

In a 5-4 decision that will cause major upheaval in political campaigns, the Supreme Court this morning struck down limits on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions -- a key plank in campaign finance laws.

As a result, corporations and unions will be able to spend money to air unlimited television ads in the run up to an election. The biggest impact may well be on the candidates -- they now are in real danger of losing control over their messages, as outside groups can dramatically outspend them.

I just left the courtroom, where justices spent 30 minutes on the bench discussing this landmark case. Justice Anthony Kennedy, reading from his majority opinion, emphasized that Congress may not censor or regulate political speech, whether it's a person doing the talking or a corporation or union.

That's at the core of the First Amendment, Kennedy said, and laws banning speech infringe those basic constitutional protections. Kennedy also pointed out that under those laws, Congress also could diminish the voice of the media business if it chose. Government, he said, may not suppress political speech on the basis of a speaker's identity.

Also significant: the court upheld disclosure requirements -- saying the public has a right to know who is behind the ads. Kennedy stressed the need for transparency in the process -- the public can see the ads, see who's paying for them and is smart enough to figure out what's behind them.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a scathing 20-minute dissent. He absolutely slammed the majority -- saying it was totally disingenuous in suggesting it was upholding core First Amendment values.

Stevens said the Court and Congress and the public for the last 100 years thought corporate speech could be regulated. He accused the Court of a "radical shift" in the law that will allow corporations to drown out political speech of candidates and increase public cynicism in the political process.

Jan Crawford
Jan Crawford is CBS News' political correspondent.
Follow on Twitter »

123 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 123 Comments

by usaf_vet January 23, 2010 9:03 PM EST

I had to dig through CBS archives to find this news story again. It's getting buried.

Probably the best illustration of the ramifications of this Supreme Court decision could be had by viewing this post WWII video link:

http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946

Personally, I think Justice Stevens is getting a raw deal in the criticisms he is getting slammed with. His opinion is only backed by a hundred years of American juris prudence.

It all comes down to this- a corporation is Not a citizen, much less a human. According to the expert comparisons offered in Michael Moore's study (remember freedom of speech?)- if corporate behavior were measured by the same standards as a human, it would be deemed sociopathic, and would undoubtedly be locked away for the social good.

The only real legal remedy offered to we citizens is to sign Congressman Grayson's petition at http://www.savedemocracy.net/ and hope these bills restricting corporate actions become law.

Reply to this comment


by starleo146 January 28, 2010 7:32 PM EST: Yes, but then we have the Senate the Republicans know only to well how to delay, delay, delay and hope they can delay till the Nov. election. I tell you we have compromised every democratic issue. How by electing a Republican for anything. I hope they get on there knees and ask for forgiveness for what they have done not only the last 8 years but from 2008 till now.We can blame ourselves as well we elect the bums I want term limits so they can not serve till dementia sets in.


by ed657 January 23, 2010 8:06 PM EST: The Republican Supreme court has scored a win for the Repbulicans and big business and American capitalism of old. Hail corporate America and to hell with the people. Let's go back to the days of the industrial revolution where tons of money was being made by the Robber Barons on the backs of the poor immigrant population working under slave like conditions. That's the future of America and the legacy of the Republican party...GREED. The gap between the haves and have nots will widen and the middle class will disappear and guess what happens next?; Reply to this comment

by amacd385 January 22, 2010 1:09 PM EST

"Upheaval in Campaigns" is the least of our danger.

One can not overstate the assault on democracy that has been launched in this pre-planned attack that will "live in infamy" from the ruling-elite's Global corporate/financial/militarist Empire ---- which until now has been only guilefully controlling 'our' country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy (aided by much of the equally 'Vichy' corporatist MSM).

Yes, there are significant differences between the events in Germany of the 1930?s and America today:

1. The evolving Empire in Germany was nationalist in scope, though global in appetite and claims (?Thousand Year Reich?), while the evolving Empire, only currently headquartered here, is overtly global in scope from the get go (since Empire is a pathology of economics first and politics only second, and must be global if planned by any but a mad-man). This economic primacy reflects Sheldon Wolin?s critique of modern Empire toward ?inverted fascism?, where economic power is senior partner in the merger of corporate and state.

2. The fast evolving Empire HQ in America is following a far more modern, sophisticated, long-term and guileful path than a Blitzkrieg and occupation of another country (competing national empire) with a crude first-generation, one-party ?Vichy? thin-veil of disguise. This Empire is ?Friendly Fascism? (Bertram Gross), so far --- although only in the U.S. However, Hannah Arendt?s prescient truth about empire must be taken very seriously now, ?Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home?.

3. Naturally, given the superior long term planning and non-human corporatist nature of this modern beast, there are many structural differences in the political manipulations, modern ?shock doctrine? pseudo-events, and infinitely more polished (softer) propaganda techniques that have been employed in the current global Empire take-over than were common to the Nazi path to power. No single human Chancellor was overtly appointed. There was no thin-veiled Reichstag fire used. The rein of Gleichschaltung, and other extra-judicial rulings have not so obviously been applied.

4. There?s possibly a bit more time (and willingness) for the U.S. citizens (and a Global People?s Movement) to confront this Global corporatist Empire --- as I wrote before the supreme court ruling:

?We are not quite yet in a situation like those trapped in Belzec, Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka, Dachau, and Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the only choice was between the "least worst" of the Nazis or their non-German guards.

However, we do not have the luxury that any formerly comfortable population might have enjoyed, of depending on their robust civil freedoms in a stable Republic, calling on their normal financial resources, and support of democracy in a Republic sliding down-hill fast on a slippery slope. The surprise can come quicker than the population of such a country senses, as it did in the 1930?s in Germany --- until it is too late --- and today, there is no boat to the freedom and safety of a by-gone America that even one as smart as Einstein can take.

Everyone in America needs to put all their best efforts, financial resources, and the "good will of men" (as Kennedy said during the Cuban Missile Crisis) to the task of saving democracy and our 'shared' world from Global Empire. It is only through the solidarity of a Global People's Movement that we can mutually survive the coming Holocaust.

As was presciently and poetically said by Martin Neimoller:

?First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out?because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out?because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak out.?

Remember this, like it was itched by a laser in your brain:

Today, those freely speaking of liberalism in America are already gone ---
Those who speak in America of the kind of sustainable ?social democracy? that all of Europe and Japan adopted after their Empire experience of WWII are gone ---
Those who dare to openly call for socialism are gone --- and prevented from even using that nasty word in their Senate title are silenced.
The unions have been decimated without a whisper of resistance.
The blacks, and immigrants, and poor, and working poor, and now even the supposed American invented ?middle-class? are disenfranchised without a whimper.
Then they will come for you --- and your choice now (but NOT THEN) will only be, ?Are you for democracy or EMPIRE? --- so make your choice for inclusiveness and democracy smartly and strongly, or accept your fate to Global Empire foolishly.?

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Reply to this comment


by YoureSoWrong25 January 22, 2010 5:01 PM EST: I think that if we printed more money, then everyone would have more money. We could put Karl Marx wearing a straight jacket on the $1 bill, which of course wouldn't be worth a cent.

by kastner63 January 22, 2010 9:47 AM EST

Around the year 1900, the U.S. was a corrupt country in the hands of big corporations, such as Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Then Theodore Roosevelt, and thirty years later, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and again after an interruption, Lyndon Johnson tried to turn this country into a state that, racially tolerant, was concerned with the welfare of its poorer citizens. Since the Reagan, these efforts have been dismantled by a succession of Republican presidents.
Now the Supreme Court has put its stamp on this return to 100 years ago - once again a corrupt country with - as the health care debate shows - no concern at all for its poorer citizens. Moreover, as their hatred against President Obama shows, the proponents of corruption and special interests also would like to turn back the clock on race relations.

Reply to this comment


by YoureSoWrong25 January 22, 2010 5:02 PM EST: When the emo boy and the morbidly obese woman put revolutionary posters on the hobo wall, then everything will be okay. Simple as that.


by r9119111 January 22, 2010 9:18 AM EST: Stevens said the Court and Congress and the public for the last 100 years thought corporate speech could be regulated. He accused the Court of a "radical shift" in the law that will allow corporations to drown out political speech of candidates and increase public cynicism in the political process.

Stevens is right. America has now been legally sold out to the highest bidder. We knew this before, but now it is official.

Our only defense is to turn off our TV sets and learn our new pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the Corporations of the United States who have bought us out."

We buy their products and the profits from those sales are being used against us for company profits. RIP America.; Reply to this comment


by usaf_vet January 22, 2010 2:32 AM EST: Legislation was introduced in Congress last week to regulate corporate actions in anticipation of this Supreme Court ruling.

The Congressman who introduced these bills has put up a website for U. S. citizens to sign a petition to prevent these bills from being tabled.

Go to www.savedemocracy.net for more information.; Reply to this comment


by rightbehind January 22, 2010 1:59 AM EST: Everybody knows that money talks. Sad day for the republic.; Reply to this comment


by rykatspop January 22, 2010 12:15 AM EST: beckieBest, you're fun, but I take the state of current affairs somewhat seriously. I'm not he sharpest tool in the shed for sure. However, you cannot possibly tell me that current generations (workers in their prime) are better off than the so-called "Greatest Generation." I'm not backtracking on anything I've said, and I don't pour over reams of data (though it sounds like you do) on all of this. I have lived long enough to know that average, educated Americans are getting a raw deal no matter how hard they work, pull themselves up by their . . . . Elizabeth Warren sums it up pretty well. So, yes, I do do a bit of research through what I consider reliable sources. Sorry for the jab earlier. I'll catch ya on another day.; Reply to this comment

by us_1776 January 22, 2010 12:04 AM EST

This is totally ridiculous. There should be absolutely no involvement by paper entities (corporations, unions, etc.) anywhere in politics.

The domestic shareholders, employees, and customers of a corporation fully represent that corporations interest in any election. The paper entity should have no right whatsoever to engage in political contributions, campaign messaging, or anything else related to our elections. And the same goes for any of the paper entities.

We are losing our democracy to powerful paper entities (corporations, pacs, unions, etc). This diminishes both political parties dramatically and gives rise to the corporate state where seats are bought by the highest bidder (spender). The PEOPLE are losing their voice in government.

Reply to this comment


by erichsh January 22, 2010 12:08 AM EST: ok us_1776, but what about 501c3 (nonprofit) organizations, or membership-driven associations like the AARP? OK for them?


by wmb1957 January 22, 2010 12:14 AM EST: Many groups on papers were not restricted prior to this, it was only corporations and unions that were restricted.

Corporations did not suddenly get the right to free speech today. Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm. itself said that corporations had the right to free speech, but it could be restricted because of a compelling state reason.

The decision today said the reason was not compelling enough to restrict free speech in overturning Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm.

If anything, the Supreme Court just set a higher bar for the state restricting our free speech rights.

See all 4 Replies

by llnews2commentnow January 21, 2010 11:37 PM EST

When did a corporation become an American citizen?

At the time the American Constitution was written, the large corporations that we have today did not exist. Today's corporate leaders can use their company's resources to hire and pay fulltime staff to further their political interest even to the determent of their own employees.

It's naive to believe all employees in a large corporation share the same political beliefs as their employer or that that have the power to change what their employer does to influence political outcomes. A corporation is not a person! It does not represent the beliefs of all its employees and should not be given the power to act as if it does.

With the introduction of computers and the Internet, corporate leadership, through control of larger and larger amounts of money and assets surpasses the influence of a single citizen. A corporation can be sued but the leadership is usually shielded from personal accountability.

It is unbelievable to me that our Supreme Court has now given a business / corporation the same rights under our Constitution as an American citizen who must abide by the Constitution and the laws of his state or suffer personal consequences for his failure to do so.

Reply to this comment


by wmb1957 January 22, 2010 12:11 AM EST: The Court strengthened our rights today.
Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm. said that corporations had the right to free speech, but it could be restricted because of a compelling state reason.

The decision today said the reason was not compelling enough to restrict free speech in overturning Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Comm.