The Supreme Court did it again.
The Court's majority was trying to strengthen the First Amendment (who could be against that, right?) in the recent Citizens United case and stirred up a hornet's nest by seeming to allow the unrestricted flow of money to political campaigns by anybody -- corporations, unions, you name it. Who could be in favor of that?
As the Romans used to say, "In medio stat veritas" -- the truth is in the middle. And this case bears the little Latin bromide out. What really happened at the Court was much more complicated and murky than the bloggers, talking heads and pundits would have us believe.
The case concerned a movie about Hillary Clinton underwritten by a conservative organization that wanted it run on DirectTV. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled the film violated the McCain-Feingold statute prohibiting corporations, unions and special interest groups from engaging in "electioneering communications" within a certain specified time period before a primary or election. So, the group sponsoring the film did what any red-blooded American would do nowadays: they sued.
The district court ruled a McCain-Feingold violation existed. In August 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and heard arguments on March 24, 2009. However, in June, they issued an unusual order directing the parties to reargue the case in September, itself a rare event because the Court's term usually begins in October. They also instructed the attorneys to submit written arguments dealing with larger constitutional issues.
A former head of the FEC was quoted in the June 30 edition of the Washington Post as saying the decision "has the potential to be a blockbuster."
He wasn't kidding.
The decision completely overruled one prior Court decision and partially overruled another. It struck down the ban on "electioneering communications" by organizations, but upheld the ban on direct contributions by these organizations to candidates.
Everyone on the Court seemed to have their own view of the matter. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court. Justices Roberts, Scalia and Alito agreed but wrote a separate opinion. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Thomas, Beyer and Sotomayor agreed with some of the decision but disagreed with other parts.
Many conservatives and libertarians thought the decision was correct; many liberals felt otherwise.
When President Obama addressed the nation in last week's State of the Union speech, he said, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
It isn't quite as simple as that. True, some decisions were overturned, but as Anthony Lewis stated in his book, "Gideon's Trumpet," the Supreme Court has overturned over one hundred of its own decisions in the course of American history. Overturning a prior decision is not always a bad thing; it may be the only way to make progress.
Ask Scott Brown of Massachusetts about money determining election outcomes. His victory over the well-financed and Kennedy-endorsed Martha Coakley is instructive. According to the Jan. 8, 2010, edition of the Boston Globe, he collected $750,000 to his opponent's $1 million; he had $367,150 cash on hand to her $937,383.
Certainly, a fat pocketbook is very helpful in ensuring continued political success. It's also helpful to be an incumbent. There's no doubt money is mother's milk to politicians of every stripe.
Most everyone agrees there's too much money in politics. The problem is that pesky First Amendment, whose exercise has been interpreted to include financial contributions. Perhaps a constitutional amendment is required; some have proposed this in response to the recent Supreme Court decision.
Democracy is a very messy business. We're continually striving to "get it right." But the fact that we're able to try, to disagree, to look at alternative viewpoints, to renegotiate, to revisit issues, says a lot about who we are. In that sense, I hope the messiness, the loose ends and the unfinished business continues.
It means we're still working at it.
Respond to Phil at thenews@bgnews.com
The Court's majority was trying to strengthen the First Amendment (who could be against that, right?) in the recent Citizens United case and stirred up a hornet's nest by seeming to allow the unrestricted flow of money to political campaigns by anybody -- corporations, unions, you name it. Who could be in favor of that?
As the Romans used to say, "In medio stat veritas" -- the truth is in the middle. And this case bears the little Latin bromide out. What really happened at the Court was much more complicated and murky than the bloggers, talking heads and pundits would have us believe.
The case concerned a movie about Hillary Clinton underwritten by a conservative organization that wanted it run on DirectTV. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled the film violated the McCain-Feingold statute prohibiting corporations, unions and special interest groups from engaging in "electioneering communications" within a certain specified time period before a primary or election. So, the group sponsoring the film did what any red-blooded American would do nowadays: they sued.
The district court ruled a McCain-Feingold violation existed. In August 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and heard arguments on March 24, 2009. However, in June, they issued an unusual order directing the parties to reargue the case in September, itself a rare event because the Court's term usually begins in October. They also instructed the attorneys to submit written arguments dealing with larger constitutional issues.
A former head of the FEC was quoted in the June 30 edition of the Washington Post as saying the decision "has the potential to be a blockbuster."
He wasn't kidding.
The decision completely overruled one prior Court decision and partially overruled another. It struck down the ban on "electioneering communications" by organizations, but upheld the ban on direct contributions by these organizations to candidates.
Everyone on the Court seemed to have their own view of the matter. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court. Justices Roberts, Scalia and Alito agreed but wrote a separate opinion. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Thomas, Beyer and Sotomayor agreed with some of the decision but disagreed with other parts.
Many conservatives and libertarians thought the decision was correct; many liberals felt otherwise.
When President Obama addressed the nation in last week's State of the Union speech, he said, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
It isn't quite as simple as that. True, some decisions were overturned, but as Anthony Lewis stated in his book, "Gideon's Trumpet," the Supreme Court has overturned over one hundred of its own decisions in the course of American history. Overturning a prior decision is not always a bad thing; it may be the only way to make progress.
Ask Scott Brown of Massachusetts about money determining election outcomes. His victory over the well-financed and Kennedy-endorsed Martha Coakley is instructive. According to the Jan. 8, 2010, edition of the Boston Globe, he collected $750,000 to his opponent's $1 million; he had $367,150 cash on hand to her $937,383.
Certainly, a fat pocketbook is very helpful in ensuring continued political success. It's also helpful to be an incumbent. There's no doubt money is mother's milk to politicians of every stripe.
Most everyone agrees there's too much money in politics. The problem is that pesky First Amendment, whose exercise has been interpreted to include financial contributions. Perhaps a constitutional amendment is required; some have proposed this in response to the recent Supreme Court decision.
Democracy is a very messy business. We're continually striving to "get it right." But the fact that we're able to try, to disagree, to look at alternative viewpoints, to renegotiate, to revisit issues, says a lot about who we are. In that sense, I hope the messiness, the loose ends and the unfinished business continues.
It means we're still working at it.
Respond to Phil at thenews@bgnews.com
Leave a comment