SCOTUS: THE NEW POLITICAL WORLD

The Supreme Court’s long awaited ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will have major ramifications in the current 2010 election cycle and in future campaign years.  Simply put, the Court restored 1^st Amendment free speech rights to all corporations, associations, and labor unions previously enjoyed only by corporations owning media outlets, per the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002. 

This means that corporations, associations, and labor unions can now spend freely on independent political expenditures from their treasury funds, and in unlimited amounts.  They can expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate at any time during or before an election. 

The majority was particularly tough on the federal regulators at the Federal Election Commission, referring to certain previous acts as 1^st Amendment censorship.  The Court viewed this decision as simply restoring the free speech rights that had been curtailed in McCain-Feingold.  The decision weakens the FEC and stops the practice of forcing entities desiring to speak of obtaining an advisory opinion from the Commission before such speech can be uttered. 

Direct contributions to federal candidates are still banned.  Corporate or labor union donations are still prohibited for national political parties.  Entities still may not coordinate their expenditures but they are free to contribute to groups or associations that desire to express an opinion in the political world.

Since this is a constitutional ruling, merely passing a new statute cannot alter this opinion.  The legislative and executive branches can only change yesterday’s decision via constitutional amendment. 

Interestingly, the corporate and labor entities, should they choose to do so, can become more powerful than even the candidates themselves in conducting a persuasion campaign, so long as the expenditures are independent and disclosed.  The political parties, already drastically weakened by McCain-Feingold, may find themselves even worse off after this decision.  Now, any one single corporation, association, or labor union will have the ability to be a greater advocate for or against a candidate than the political party committee, and in certain instances the candidate himself.

The decision clearly makes it easier to engage in independent expenditures and participate in the political process for everyone and every entity other than a national political party committee. 

It remains to be seen how the ruling will affect the coming election cycle, but it is clear that the electorate has greater free speech rights regardless of the timing of such speech, than it did yesterday.

The Citizens United ruling is a major breakthrough for free speech advocates of all political persuasions and a crushing setback for the government regulators.  This will also create a domino effect in states that have similar speech restrictions on entities within their jurisdictions.