Supreme Court affirms corporate free speech

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court's affirmation Monday that corporations have the right to engage in direct political activity squelched a long-shot hope of campaign finance reform advocates of rolling back Citizens United, the 2010 decision that ushered in a new era of unbridled campaign spending.

In a 5-4 decision, the court summarily overturned a century-old Montana state law that banned corporate political expenditures, saying it conflicted with the First Amendment speech rights of corporations contained in the Citizens United case.

The ruling, while expected, served to underline the bleak landscape facing proponents of campaign finance regulations just a decade after the landmark McCain-Feingold Act restricted large, unregulated donations in federal elections.

Now, not only can corporations spend unlimited amounts of money on politics, but the 2012 campaign has been marked by the explosive growth of 'super PACs" independent political committees produced by a lower court decision that followed Citizens United and fueled by wealthy individuals and private companies. And with Monday's action, the Supreme Court made it clear that any state laws seeking to ban corporate political expenditures are unconstitutional.

Such spending is "threatening the health of our democracy," said White House spokesman Eric Schultz, adding that the court missed an opportunity to correct the "mistake" it made in Citizens United.

The silver lining, reform advocates hope, is that the return of big money into the system will trigger a public backlash.

"By the time this election is over, the country is going to look at the campaign finance system we have and think it is corrupt and insane," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. "And this is going to create major new opportunities for reform. When the country demands change, elected officials tend to pay attention."

But the court's ruling in the Montana case makes it that much harder to curtail Citizens United, in part because it affirmed the idea that independent expenditures are not corrupting. Without a change in the makeup of the court, overturning the decision will require a constitutional amendment, no small feat.

In the meantime, campaign finance reformers find themselves fending off challenges to remaining laws, particularly disclosure rules now being assailed by conservatives.

The Montana case hinged on a law dating to 1912 that attempted to curb the immense influence copper mining companies then exerted in state politics. (One so-called Copper King, William Andrews Clark, secured a U.S. Senate seat in 1899 by bribing state lawmakers.)

Go here to read the rest:
Supreme Court affirms corporate free speech