In the flavour of the times, I too am writing in a Matt O’Grady “good God I’m so angry I just have to blog” moment. Although, admittedly I first read about this development yesterday evening and have given myself a few hours of distance to temper my thoughts and opinions.
I suppose I should introduce myself as the American studying overseas this quarter as it provides a bit of clarity as to why I am both upset and connected to the Supreme Court decision that was handed down from the federal judiciary just a few hours ago. I hope you all will find this not only interesting but find it as an opportunity to learn from our mistakes.
In the U.S. Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission the Court ruled 5-4 in favour of throwing out 100-years of precedent in deregulating the spending of private corporations on campaigns in the last 30-days of an election. The concurring opinion written by Justice Scalia concludes that; “Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy.”
What they completely and utterly fail to take into account is that lobbyists will now have unrestrained political power, in the sense that they will be able to tell a candidate that they have however many millions of dollars at their expense to advertise for (or against) them leading into the crucial moments of our already over-financed campaign system.
Under this ruling, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” will not only guide the principals of the free-market but guide the purse of the legislature and the sword of the executive. I find it even more interesting that the NY Times features this article on the homepage of their website; however, The Wall Street Journal, a right-leaning economic-based newspaper, is running a front-page article titled, “Big U.S. Banks Hit as Obama Gets Tough.” How ironic.
In an odd and eye-opening occurrence former presidential candidate and Arizona Senator John McCain and President Obama share an opinion on the matter; this ruling is bad for America. The New York Times reports that John McCain was quoted as saying he was “disappointed”, and that President Obama said it was “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.”
In the last decade individual American politicians, on both sides, have sought to limit massive corporate influence and lobbyist pressures on the political system. Last presidential election America rebirthed the grassroots system of political organisation where the individual person en masse is the root for political change and discourse in the political system. This court decision undermines most, if not all, of what small progress we, as a country, have made in that up-hill struggle.
I am not only disgusted, I am fearful of what implications this decision could have. Perhaps the only hope that the dissenting populace has is just that, the dissenting opinion. In the American legal system it is not uncommon that in the scope of history’s lens, the dissenting opinion is more important than that of the Court’s opinion in a decision. Thus, I will leave you with this excerpt of the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor…
“In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules…At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
John Tyler is an American political science student at Ohio University. He is interning with the Welsh Liberal Democrats until March.
Related posts:
I was gratified to read this. This Supreme Court decision made me angry too, but what does a Brit, brought up in a European liberal conservative milieu, know about US political philosophy? So I didn’t blog about it.
I’m glad that John did, and reassured us that US liberal democracy lives. Presumably what we have witnessed is the result of Republican Presidents in the past having the opportunity to install relatively young conservatives to the Supreme Court bench as liberals resigned or died. Scalia’s name in particular jumps out as one associated with an extremely narrow view of the law.
What should worry us here is that conservative politicians this side of the pond might take a lead from America and make sure that the limited reforms of the constitutional Bill currently going through Parliament never get enacted.
Robbocop becomes a step closer, the corporate giants runs the world with a puppet government, sadly but money has always counted.
Also, I should thank you for your kind words regarding this blog entry. I only hope that the US democratic voice back home speaks up enough and puts enough pressure on their representatives to address this ruling with proper legislation.
Frank, you’re right about how the conservative appointments affected this case. What’s interesting to note is our “swing” Justice’s opinion on the case. Since the court is currently composed of four left-leaning justices and four right-leaning justices, Justice Kennedy is often the “swing” man in the middle and he normally leans left.
Oddly, this time he was in favour of the ruling and he even wrote the opinion of the court. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the U.S. Supreme Court. Please don’t let this explanation insult you, I just want to be clear that I’m talking on the same page as you are and (unfortunately) I’ve gone to school with many American students who don’t even know this. There is the opinion of the Court and then sometimes concurring opinions that ruled on the same side as the Court (but for different reasons).
Now, as for Kennedy’s opinion, that of the Court, let me post a few excerpts:
“The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
“Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation.”
“Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judg- ment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend- ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”
(In the last quote he mentions “Hillary”, that is what this entire case was over. Citizens United made a documentary that was anti-Hillary Clinton. 30-days prior to the primary they wanted to air the film, but under existing U.S. law they feared that making it available online would be a federal offense. That’s when they filed the case).
I interpret Kennedy’s opinion, that of the Court, to be far different from that of Scalia and Roberts’ concurring opinions that cite the “free market economy” as reason for making this decision. From what I have read in the news there are legislators working to draft legislation that will limit corporate, for-profit, contributions. I hope that this opinion doesn’t lead to uncapped corporate spending, I fear that it will, but nonetheless I hope.
For the sake of those here in the UK and the constitutional bills you mentioned, I hope that someone reminds the people of the opinion of the Court in this case and deters attention from the concurring opinions of Roberts and Scalia.
Sorry for the lengthy quotes from the case; as the opinions, concurring opinions and dissenting opinion span 183 pages I haven’t had the chance to read it all, so I feel a bit uncomfortable making assessments without lengthy assistance from what I have read.
John, thank you for the quotations. My first thought was that [the people] does not equal [corporations], so that the judgment need not be the thin end of a nasty wedge. But I obviously need to mull over both your postings.