Supreme Court majority vs, Minority
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC has opened the floodgates to corporate money in federal campaigns in ways we haven’t seen for nearly a century. While for decades corporations have been able to set up special accounts, called PACs, to accept contributions and spend them on political activities, they have not been allowed to spend money from their vast corporate treasuries in connection with federal elections. Citizens United v. FEC has changed all that.
Below are some key points about the decision, and how the Court’s move to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1991) and portions of McConnell v. FEC (2003) will undermine our democratic process.
The Core of McCain-Feingold Isn’t Affected
It’s important to note that the central provision of McCain-Feingold , the ban on unlimited “soft money” contributions from wealthy interests to political parties, still stands. Even though the Court has allowed independent corporate spending on campaigns, the ban on soft money contributions will continue.
How Unlimited Corporate Spending on Advertising May Impact Campaigns
The Supreme Court has now allowed unlimited corporate spending on campaigns.
The Court Ignored Longstanding Legal Principles
This decision runs contrary to the concept of “judicial restraint,” the idea that a court should decide a case on constitutional grounds only if absolutely necessary, and should rule as narrowly as possible. Here, the Court did just the opposite -- it decided the constitutionality of all restrictions on corporate spending in connection with elections in an obscure case in which many far more narrow rulings were possible.
The Court also ignored stare decisis, the historic respect for precedent, which Chief Justice John Roberts termed “judicial modesty” during his 2005 confirmation hearing. It’s hard to imagine a bigger blow to stare decisis than to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that has been the cornerstone of the nation’s campaign finance system for 100 years.
Finally, the Court ignored the longstanding practice of deciding a case only after lower courts have fully examined the facts. Here, because the broad constitutional questions raised in the recent reargument of the case were not raised in the court below, there is no factual record at all on which the Court could base its legal conclusions.
Above are only excerpt from an article appearing on:
http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold01222010.html
Russell Feingold is a United States Senator from Wisconsin.
