Political Animal
Blog
It’s not likely that anything fundamental will change, but it’s worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has just been given a chance to reconsider the empirical (or perhaps it’s better to say “nonempirical”) basis for its fateful decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The occasion is a stay granted by the Court in enforcement of a Montana Supreme Court decision involving a state anticorruption statute that is a direct challenge to Citizens United. Here’s what Justice Ginsburg had to say in supporting the stay:
Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 42). A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway. Because lower courts are bound to follow this Court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified, however, Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989), I vote to grant the stay.
Ginsburg is alluding to Justice Kennedy’s flat statement in the majority opinion in Citizens United that unlimited corporate or union contributions would not have a corrupting effect.
As the Editors of the New York Times commented today:
The Montana state court ruling rests on a careful review of the political corruption that led the state to pass its Corrupt Practices Act. The Citizens United ruling, by contrast, is based on no evidentiary record at all. The Supreme Court, on its own initiative, took up the broad question of corporate and union spending when the controversy in the case was much narrower. The court’s conservative majority essentially used the Citizens United case to overturn a century of established federal law by imposing its own legal theory, without relying on facts.
If facts actually matter to Justice Kennedy, there’s a clear basis for a second look at what the 5-4 Court majority has done to our system of financing campaigns.
Facebook
Twitter
jjm on February 22, 2012 12:57 PM:
I hope the Supremes realize that all they did with this ludicrous ruling was create a giant potlach of billionaires trying to one up each other in displaying how much money they could waste.
Seriously, it seems only to be about that, if you look at the ludicrous outcomes outlined in today's NYT! Billionaire versus billionaire, each one loonier than the last.
T2 on February 22, 2012 12:58 PM:
since Citizens United has had such a high profile and very destabilizing effect on the current Republican campaign for presidency, the SC might be willing to reconsider. I'm sure they approved Citizens United with the thought that it would screw Democrats, but turns out, it screws everyone.
Celui on February 22, 2012 1:04 PM:
'Citizens United' is clearly the most corruptive influence yet in the American political scene. No matter how it's construed, the availability of money, whether monitored or not, is the driving force behind office seekers' public faces. Say what you will, money can certainly 'buy' a Congress. We've already seen too much of that. Two suggestions: 1) financing for every public office election is to be limited to a certain dollar amount to be carefully monitored by an independent panel of bean counters, and 2) it's almost a certainty that campaign 'arguments' will reflect actual public policy rather than be concentrated on culture war issues which aren't representative of public policy issues.
Hedda Peraz on February 22, 2012 1:11 PM:
Overturning Citizens United will set a dangerous precedent, and in the future votes will carry more weight than dollars.
Not what the Founding Fathers foresaw, at all, at all.
exlibra on February 22, 2012 1:11 PM:
Supremes are like doctors; they never admit to being wrong. No matter the evidence, no matter even that the damage is being done to their "pets" (at the moment, anyway), the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) + Kennedy won't change their minds on the issue.
schtick on February 22, 2012 1:33 PM:
Didn't they have to toss out a law in order to get the end result for CU? How will they undo that if they admit they're wrong?
Mitch on February 22, 2012 1:43 PM:
I agree with exlibra.
Citizens United is here to stay. The Supreme Court will never end it and Congress will never act against it (even if the Dems had full control of all three branches).
Why should anyone in the government care about it? All Citizens United does is give politicians more money to campaign; and nothing is more important that campaigning.
Even those who disagree with it (like Obama) have no choice but to use it. The more it's used, the harder it will be for anyone to ever stop it. How can you fight against it, when you have used it to your advantage? How can you get elected if you don't? It's a like drug for American politics, addictive as crack for sure.
The Supremes really screwed America, and I don't think this will ever get fixed. Just thinking about it shakes any hope that I have for the future of this nation.
Trollop on February 22, 2012 1:45 PM:
Too bad the Supremes won't consider an actual "second chance" to regain American trust of the highest court in the land..
Now nobody can say that the Republic wasn't given a second chance to clean up it's ridiculous and reckless act.
jjm on February 22, 2012 1:47 PM:
I finally realize that Hedda Praez is snarking! I thought s/he was for real.
imjustsayin on February 22, 2012 1:47 PM:
Gosh, I am beginning to think that this Citizens United ruling might have been a good thing. After all, this allows the wealthy conservative donors to pour millions of dollars into the Republican campaign coffers allowing the nation, and the rest of the world, to breathlessly await and witness the next hinged, deranged, racist, hypocritical, non-compassionate, and just plain stupid remarks from each of the Republican hopefuls that will practically guarantee an Obama victory along with a Democratic sweep in November in many congressional races across the country as well. Thanks SCOTUS!
max on February 22, 2012 1:50 PM:
Consider the possibility the SCOTUS RATS and one confused cohort could somehow make things even worse.
Bj Smith on February 22, 2012 1:52 PM:
Extreme partisanship should not begin with a body that is given the sole responsibility to decide the final fairness for our country, for the benefit of everyone. If not overturned it should shake the entire country into what is happening with this country. Keep in mind your vote decides who will be on that court, it is therefor one of, if not the most important reason for voting.
stormskies on February 22, 2012 1:55 PM:
Why would they 'fix' it since in fact John Roberts intentionally sought out the very limited case involving Hillary Clinton, which has already been ruled upon, with 'activist' intent to do what he did: Citizens United.
Won't happen. This is the most corrupt Supreme Court that this country has ever seen, right next to the court that overturned every existing precedent, including States rights, in order to install Bush as the President.
Repiglicans are inherently corrupt Souls. They mouth all kinds of platitudes and morality plays yet, in the end, they are simply about power and the authority that comes with it. Once they have purposefully fooled many others with the head fakes they always then act upon their real intentions. Witness all the Repiglican governors who got elected mouthing what the electorate wanted to hear, then they enact exactly the agenda they want to that has nothing to do with the original head fakes.
Their very souls are corrupt.
Patango on February 22, 2012 3:43 PM:
""Ginsburg is alluding to Justice Kennedy’s flat statement in the majority opinion in Citizens United that unlimited corporate or union contributions would not have a corrupting effect. ""
This sums up the majorities thinking on the subject , and it will not change after the decision was made , as has been pointed out ...
It just amazes me that someone who is suppose to be really smart like kennedy could even say such a thing , it makes no sense , which is why people come to the cynical conclusion that it really is all about embracing the corruption of the process , and that the court is out of touch with reality ...
It works well from within the bubble these people live in , it is their world ,,,," NO ONE WILL BE CORRUPTED BY MONEY , NOR HAVE THEY EVER BEEN CORRUPTED BY IT " ...Talk about la la land ....