http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/supreme-court-hearing-case-today-to.html
Obama’s speech on health care is a big story, but the Supreme Court is hearing a case today that may have a huge impact on the future of American elections. the idea that corporations should be allowed to directly contribute to elections has been rejected for decades. This case could break down that last barrier .
Roberts has always sided with corporations over people and workers. I hope he doesn’t do it again. This looks like a push to get pro business decisions through before Obama can influence the court with new appointees.
Editorial: Keep ban on contributions Here is an editorial explaining how it was determined over a century ago that corporations were buying politicians and direct campaign contributions gave them far to much access and power.
While I don’t think that corporations should be able to influence politicians beyond the basic sharing of information and maybe a dinner or two, just because it has proven to be a bad thing doesn’t mean that it’s unconstitutional. Officially, it’s not up to the courts to limit this, it’s up the legislators.
Officially, yes it is up to the courts to decide constitutionality. Why would you think otherwise?
Looks like a balancing test. There’s no argument that the law burdens corporations’ exercise of political expression. But there’s a balancing interest to the law: “preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political arena by reducing the threat that huge corporate treasuries, which are amassed with the aid of favorable state laws and have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas, will be used to influence unfairly election outcomes.” (Quoting Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce).
In this particular case, though, we’re not talking about a huge corporate treasury – it was a non-profit group that released the movie.
How did you feel about the possibility of having Fahrenheit 9/11 air on TV just before the 2004 election? It seems to me reasonable to prohibit that, in just the same way that it’s reasonable to prohibit or regulate “Hilary: the Movie,” in close proximity to elections.
But if you felt that Fahrenheit 9/11 should be unregulated and shown just before the 2004 election, and still feel that Hilary: the Movie should be suppressed, then there’s a problem.
The system is that the legislators write the laws, and (if they are challenged) the courts decide whether the laws violate the Constitution.
The legislators HAVE prohibited it. At issue is section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which permitted the FEC to regulate the showing of “Hilary: the Movie” so close to election time.
The court is being asked to decide if the limits the legislators have placed on content are constitutional.
First I’ve heard of it.
You’ve misread what I said.
Constitutionality and wisdom are not linked. A choice can be unwise, and yet still constitutional. It’s not the business of the court to decide whether it is wise for something to be legal. That’s the job of the legislators. If the current ban was made by the court based on the wisdom of the thing rather than based on constitutionality, then that’s the court creating law. They’re not supposed to do that, and it would be entirely their duty to reverse the decision.
We should all hope that a ban from the legislature and the president would soon follow, but that’s not really related to the constitutionality of the act.
In which case this isn’t an overturn of some sort of ban, it’s just refining the edges.
The article seemed to indicate that since SCOTUS has asked for a rehearing on the case with a new issue, it looks like we may be looking at some sort of overturning of prior precedent.
I find it unfathomable that anyone would prevent either of the two from airing. I can’t think of a more clear violation of free speech or freedom of the press.
This provision is like saying that newspaper companies have a freedom to publish information, but are not allowed to spend money on ink. The expediture of money is essential to disseminating a message.
And if it is overturned, will we hear the cries of “activist judges!” from the conservatives? :dubious:
It’s obvious that this is what the people who wrote the articles think. But I couldn’t say that I trust your average reporter’s understanding of the actual scale of things.
On the contrary, the opinion is likely to shake the very foundation of campaign finance law. While the Court could, in theory, limit the opinion to whether a movie is somehow different from a straight-up political advertisement, this is not a likely result. For one, the “movie” in question is basically one long advertisement. For another, there’s no rational reason to distinguish the two - especially where, as here, the movie shares the same purpose as a political ad.
I think this is a genuinely difficult issue, with reasonable people on both sides. It just cannot be that writing a book about the election, or making a documentary film, is only allowable if you fund the thing from your own pocket. Such a requirement is the functional equivalent of requiring people to make their own ink to print political pamphlets - it would so vastly limit the influence of their speech as to make it irrelevant. At the same time, preventing undue influence and corruption are extremely important values.
I see no easy solutions to the problem of a candidate having more influence because his political opinions are more consistent with those of rich corporations. Public funding has serious flaws, and is even more speech restrictive than BCRA. Requirements of transparency can go a long way–maybe even all the way for high-level elections like the Presidency–but don’t really solve the problem for less high-profile elections.
In the end, the Court has to allow this movie. It is quintessential political speech. If this doesn’t survive, then there’s no reason to treat books or anything else differently. Such a ruling would allow campaigns to basically control the discussion, with no opportunity for third-parties to inject themselves absent massive grassroots fundraising. How the Court allows this movie, while still maintaining some reasonable balance, is why we try to put some real geniuses on the Court. I hope they find something that works.
Bricker (or anyone with some knowledge of the specific case), could you please link to a summary of the actual case in question? I’m particularly interested in knowing how Hilary: the Movie was distributed.
The Roberts Court has been very, very pro business. I am sure he took the case to reverse it. It has only been in place 107 years.
I can’t find a free on-line source for the opinion.
Here is a slightly more in-depth story.
Free source: scotuswiki.com
No.
Or maybe. It depends on what they do. Since the law is clearly in tension with the Constitution, whatever action they take will flout some written law. As I suggested above, it seems reasonable that they read some reasonable restriction into the First Amendment to permit this sort of regulation.
However, if they take it upon themselves to craft specific timelines and precise requirements, then I, at least, would call it activist.
Yes, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 has been in place 107 years. :rolleyes:
The Tilman Act is not really at issue here.