The Supreme Court decision on campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is in, and Tom Goldstein
at SCOTUSblog calls it "a small revolution in campaign finance law."
Why? The court has overturned a law limiting corporate and union
spending in politics, which commentators say could change political
- Bad for Dems, writes Politico's Ben Smith. Corporations having free rein to spend isn't great for "Democratic prospects in 2010."Huge Victory for Conservatives,' agrees Salon's Alex Koppelman.
- Huge Victory for Free Speech, counters Hot Air's Ed Morrissey,
who predicts that the opening of corporate coffers will be minimal. He
says the only effect of the laws was to force corporations and unions
to engage in expensive subterfuges. Campaign finance "reforms" just
drive corporate and union money into less-transparent channels,
creating mini-industries of money laundering. This ruling will just
allow the money to be seen.
- Agreed: This Is About Free Speech, says Ilya Shapiro
at Cato, arguing that the court "correctly [held] that government
cannot try to 'level the political playing field' by banning
corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films,
books, or even campaign signs." While more money may now be spent on
campaigns, "none of this money will go directly to candidates ... it
will go instead to spreading information about candidates and issues."
- Justice Stevens: FREE SPEECH MY FOOT. The First Amendment,
he says, does not in fact demand corporations be "treated identically
to natural persons in the political sphere." It also does not "tell us
when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
hhorn at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.