Fans of the First Amendment can rejoice. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues.
From The New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

The case arose over the documentary, Hillary: The Movie, produced by David Bossie and directed by Alan Peterson, which a lower court had ruled violated provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold against corporate political involvement. From the Citizens United website:
BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rules in part in our favor 5-4!
Ruling: Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. Austin v. Mich is overruled, as is part of McConnell v. FEC. Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissent. The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy is 57 pages, and Justice Stevens’ partial dissent is 90 pages long.
Here is the decision:
09 –
When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
UPDATE:
Naturally, President Obama immediately issued a statement opposing the decision. As the Washington Post reports::
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.
So there it is: the President and members of the Mandarin Class are preparing a “forceful response” to the First Amendment.
Had enough yet?






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
1,632 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, BigJournalism. BigJournalism said: Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment http://bit.ly/5Z2W5R [...]
A corporation is not a person!
………"the abomination known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, especially those aspects of the law that imposed restrictions on corporate spending on political issues."
Money is the lifeblood of politics. Cut off the money, and they whither on the vine, and die…………
To quote one of the wisest men I know (my father) "A corporation is not a thing unto itself. It's an idea that binds together a group of people." So a group of people decide to support a candidate. Are we supposed to stop them?
money IS free speech…
Always has been. 'Put your money where your mouth is' is a time honored refrain. And how else can the public reign in governmental excesses without the money to influence elections? Corporations ARE people, employ people, and produce our goods. Congressional oversight and the IRS are suitable checks and balances on them.
Let them- let all Americans- speak at the ballot box.
Not just ACORN…
Bravo, McCain-Feingold was idiotic. Even more idiotic than Johnny McCain and Rusty Feingold themselves.
In fact, legally, it is.
Wonderful news. The government has no business restricting political speech. Period. For any reason. For any group. None whatsoever. Thank God the court over-ruled this monstrosity of a bill.
Legally, a corporation is a "person" and is a "citizen" or the state it is incorporated and the state of its primary/principal place of business.
Or, some like to think of it as being many people. while this isn't the legal viewpoint that's been held for centuries.
I absolutely, completely, totally agree with you.
I'm a staunch conservative, and am sickened by this decision.
Yes, a corporation is a "legal person," but that's just a fiction to allow the gov't to collect taxes from it.
But corporations should have no ability to sway elections.
Neither is a union (Ex. SEIU, NEA, Teamsters)
A corporation is not a person, it is people. A group of people and as such as the same rights as a single person or groups based on race, religion, etc.
WIth the first sentence, McCain-Feingold ran afowl of the constitution. The sad part is 1) it took this long to rectify and 2) it was a close decision. 3) it was not completely struck down
You are right. Technically.
It is an association of persons!
I disagree. A corporation is an entity that is run by a board but is owned by stockholders. If the corporation had to get the approval of the stockholders (simple majority) to run a political ad it would be one thing. But I believe that it is inappropriate of the board or CEO to take part of the profits of the stockholders and without their consent run a political ad.
neither is a union or 503c
Wouldn't it be prudent to at least make sure that there was no foreign ownership of any corp contributing to an American political campaign? Could I, as a foreigner , setup a corp in the states and then pump foreign bucks into whatever agenda I want to? Do you think that is wise?
It's about friggin time!
Your wrong. The courts have granted "person" status to corporations years ago. This ruling has further eroded the Constitution by giving the one with the most money the best chance of winning. Another nail in the coffin of a wants great nation.
Corporations used to be chartered for a period of time by the States and would or wouldn't be renewed if they violated their charters which were usually written in favor of the community in which they operated.
Unions are not persons either but it was okay for them to donate millions to their favored politian or political cause but corporations were limited. Whats okay for one should be okay for the other. Thats called equal rights…
Good or bad (and it was bad), it was not equally applied. How did this movie supposedly run afoul of that law and Farenheit 9/11get a pass?
Full disclosure is the best way to combat bought and paid for politicians. Donating to campaigns is a kin to freedom of speech. Although, it must be said Corporations myopically look out for their interests while ignoring the greater ramifications to their deeds and those who they support. They fail to realize if the economy collapses they won’t have a venue to participate in. They love to limit competition through government intervention. They even lust after having HC being taken over by the government. Union leadership seems to enjoy biting their nose off despite their face. We’ve lost count how many jobs they have chased overseas. Unions and corporation influence has only grown under these rules. K Street like all of D.C. is booming. Full disclosure and more importantly an informed electorate is the key to end unbalanced influence of special interest groups. All the money in the world can’t brainwash you into voting for a crooked politicians. Only ignorance can. Massachusetts has shown us that a majority of us have become savants.
That's an interesting way to think about it, American Ivy. But it makes me think of a country and its government. We are the citizens. We are represented by our representatives in government. But, we don't really make any decisions, except who will represent us for a span of time. There aren't usually opportunities to make our voices heard in meaningful ways – to let our reps know when we're happy or not, like the special election in Massachusetts.
Just think, we could stay in Iraq even though most people (if you think the pulse of the people may be felt by studying the polls) disagreed with that decision.
Congress can try to ram through 'health care reform' even though, according to polls, most people don't want it either….
So, when people blame us for invading countries; when health care reform passes down more debt and taxes to the people of our nation, can it honestly be said that we as a bound "group of people" have decided anything?
I I happen to think that it makes certain that smart, talented folks who want to serve their country (rather than spending their time being re-elected and giving favors to the cronies that help fill their campaign coffers)…will never be more than the exception to the political rule.
Let those with the most money speak the loudest!!
The scary part is that four justices think that this does NOT violate the First Amendment.
Who were the 4 disenters?
Sure can't.
…And now Cindy is sipping the lib Flavor-aid.
http://patriotpoliticos.wordpress.com/?p=704&...
Amen to this. This particular part of the bill is what soured me to McCain (as well as a lot of people and Bush for signing it). Restricting speech close to an election or primary except for individuals who should somehow have the funds to purchase airtime by themselves was a blatant grab-for-power by incumbents. You people are on OUR payroll and you answer to US.
this sounds like it's going to get messy, please someone dumb it down for me or at the very least give a more accurate description of things to come.
Well I wonder what Government Motors will do. The Fiats didn't sell before and probably will not now soo Government money spent to lobby Government. Wow will ACORN and Obama like that.
Then following the logic since it is a fiction we ought to do away with corporate taxes, after all the ability to tax is the ability to destroy. If corporate persons have no legitimate voice in our elections then they have no resort but to engage in intensive lobbying and corruption. I would far rather have the corporate money out in the open.
A corporation is a legal entity and has the Constitutional right to issue position papers, political ads, editorials which when published or dissemenated act act "speech" on behalf of the corporation. Good liberals like you JBear wamt to deny a corporation its right to participate in the political process. You of course, don't mind unions, execrcising its right. How sad.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would have been less surprised by events this week if women were barred from voting and slavery was made legal again.
Thats right, and neither is a website!
Corrupt Democracy?
Oh yes, I have no doubt the Left is worried about that LMAO
I heard Sen Schumer screaming that this is one of the worst decision the Supreme Court has made. So I figure it must be one of the best decisions every for our country.
You can disagree, but you're wrong. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's just the reality of the law. You can disagree that the sky is blue also, that doesn't mean anything.
Time to say that John McCain rivals Patty Murray in the room temp IQ department….the man is intellectually challenged…
You mean like Clinton did with Lippo Group and the Chinese? And what did Congress do about that? Reforming election law is one thing. McCain-Feingold was NOT the answer.
In the last two days, freedom appears to be awakening from Coma.
Let's not stop now. Let's rid this country of left wing anti-Americans like Chuck U Schumer who is squealing like a stuck pig over this reaffirmation of our Constitutional rights.
In answer to "Rats" question,
The four disenters were
Larry, Curly, Mo and Tweedle Dumber
Personally, I believe it levels the playing field. If the Unions, lobbyist, and Mr. Soros can throw money at their candidates to get them elected, why can't the Corporations do the same??? Fair is fair. Bravo to the Supreme Court for seeing this for what it is and taking the power away from the left-wing progressives who no longer can control who donates what to whom. The Constitution wins again……McCain is a closet progressive. He is really a Republicrat…..
Why is that relevant?
Thank God for the 5 conservative judges who for the most part let the Constitution rule. Who knows where we will be if Obama get his choices on the Court. I can just see Eric Holder ascending to the bench. What a great day that would be for the Terrorists who want to destroy the United States of America.
I have a feeling one of them was Sotomayer
Who is the group of people? The stockholders? The employees? The management? Does everyone have to agree? I think this is a move in the wrong direction. This effectively lets a corporation buy legislation (or makes it easier than it already is) that screws over it's customers or it's competition. Why does anyone think this is a good idea?
Money is not the life blood of politics, power is.
When power is appropriated unjustly by the government, people (and collections of people; i.e. corporations, uinions, and so on) will act to influence government policy for outcomes favorable to them. That is the problem.
You want money out of politics? Remove their power, put them back in the box the Constitution put them in, and you will see money and all the disguting abusives leave.
Now that McCain's legislation has been declared unconstitutional he should resign. Indeed, any legislator who drafts, introduces, or votes for a bill that is adopted and later found unconstitutional should be removed from office. This is especially true of any legislation that in anyway interferes with rights protected under the Bill of Rights. It should be a crime to violate the rights of the people, forever prohibiting these criminals from any public office, government job, lobbying position or practice of law. A constitutional amendment is in order, which would soon prove to be a dose of reality to our scurrilous Congress critters.
Strike two for McRino—
Strike three–vote this career politician OUT!
A corporation is right now considered by law to be a person — based on a very iffy interpretation of a case from the 19th century. Unfortunately, these “people” are interested in one thing and one thing only: profit. The officers of the corporation are actually legally bound to maximize profits for shareholders. A person who is only interested in his own gain is generally called a sociopath and are regarded as dangerous. The people I know all feel such emotions as love, hate, happiness, sadness, pleasure, and pain. A corporation does not, it is a legal robot that is programmed for profit. It is not a person by any traditional or conservative definition of person.
Thus, those who believe a corporation is a person are not conservatives. No, they are radicals and dangerous.
I have two questions to those who think that accepting a corporation as a person is a good thing for any democracy or republic. They are:
1. Do you believe that a corporation should be able to vote?
2. Do you belive that a corporation should be allowed to hold high office in our republic?
The fact that the liberal judges dissented while conservative judges ruled in favor speaks volumes as to where McCain stands as a politician. It is time for McCain to be retired where he can join whichever party he wants, which is not clear based on his votes in Congress, and then we can replace him with a true Conservative.
All the McCain-Feingold Act did was ensure that Soros had the biggest voice in Congress through his PACs and funding of liberal groups like ACORN. At the very least, we should establish our own advocacy groups and let business voices be heard as well so that EVERYONE has a seat at the political table, not just the liberal approved ones.
Is Free Speech Money? Does speech hold a monetary value? NO…..The restrictions on political contributions could be limited to the constituents to which he/she serves. And there could be restrictions on how they may use those funds. Then this may be audited prior to seating the candidate. Why not require that after the campaign is finished the leftover money be used to pay the candidates salary so that they are not allowed to have a head start on future opposition?
Yes it is. It is not a natural individual but it is a person for purposes of the law. If it's not a person why does it pay taxes?
So is a corporation; both have power structures where some individuals exert mor influence than others.
Foreign corporations must also be licensed and operating as an American corporation and pay US taxes. Doesn't that give them a right of free speech? After all, we are trying terrorists aka enemy combatants captured on the field of battleras common criminals and giving them ( illegally, of course) US Constitutional rights and domestic trials.
Why? If you don't like it, you can disassociate yourself from the corporation by selling your stock. Do you think that unions should have the same requirement? If not, then you are a hypocrite.
So do you apply this same principle to unions (of which one I belong and object vehemently that they spend my dues on politics) which do exactly the same thing?
Companies pay taxes and should be allowed to support candidates whos serve their best interests.
They have that right ANYWAY!!!!
Unions do far worse than this daily. Stockholders are not FORCED to buy the stock they own but union members are forced to join unions. Wake up Pat.
Another fool from the peanut gallery heard from.
The Constitution Strikes Back! You lose McBeeoych!!!
This evens back the playing field and takes the advantage away from the incumbents.
Although I voted for John McCain for president I've long thought that McCain/Feingold was an obscene restriction upon our First Amendment rights, particularly because I Catholic was made aware that some of the restrictions imposed by the law were imposed upon /against Right-to-Life advocacy.
BTW, John McCain was the son of the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval forces in the Pacific when he was shot down over North Viet-Nam & imprisoned. By virtue of growing up in the household in which he did he was perforce well informed on national security issues long before he reached his majority.
Taxation without representation? If you want to tax them… You must also permit them to speak.
I think that would put him in the Kerry category….
Finally, this will release the choke hold that the progressives have had on this country for the last few years. McCain should have been tossed out after this monstrosity of a bill. He's a RINO, along with his Gay marriage supporting wife. Thank you Lord for allowing the BIG house, known as government, to finally to begin the process of being cleaned out. Bye bye Chuck you Schumer and all the other criminals! 2010 will be fun
While a corporation and human/individual are treated similarly, it is instructive to see that a corporation enjoys so many more tax advantages/havens/loopholes, etc, than the citizen. Where is the outrage with regard to this inequity? This was a poorly written law and needed to be stricken. There are many more ways to resolve inequity between taxable entities and to limit influence as it pertains to elections, etc. The will and resolve to more reasonalbly/partially level the playing field between corporate America and it's citizens is lacking, for now. Perhaps the election in Mass. will begin the process of purging those who enlarge their purses at the expense of the common man. We have precious little time to see if action can preclude the reckoning our financial system is approaching.
This is awesome news!
Isn't that what unions do now?
Neither is a Union.
It is also inappropriate for a union to take union dues from its members and without their consent run a political ad, particular when many of their members may be opposed to whatever it is that the union is backing.
As an Arizonan I am embarrassed by any bill that begins with "McCain" McCain-Feingold and McCain Kennedy. McCain is running for Senator once again this fall. And sadly, from the looks of the other Candidates I will most likely have to vote for McCain in order to keep out the only slightly worse Democratic contenders. Sigh.
Thank God that he keeps getting his bills rejected, or as in this case, overturned.
All right, if a corporation is a person with the same rights to political speech as a person, then make their contributions subject to the same contribution limits of an individual– to wit:
$2,300 per Election to a Federal candidate — Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
$28,500 per calendar year to a national party committee — applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees
$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee
Aggregate Total — $108,200 per two-year election cycle as follows:
$42,700 per two-year cycle to candidates
$65,500 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs, of which no more than $40,000 can go to PACs.
Thanks to the five justices who can read and understand the First Amendment!
Corporations have the right to political speech just as do individuals, for they are made up of individuals – for those who say that more money equals more political power, that may be true when you have an uninformed electorate incapable of critical analysis – but in the end good ideas will always win against stupid ideas, witness Massachusetts! Maybe this will help balance the liberal left media, who have for so long slanted and lied about business and corporations.
President GW Bush was RIGHT! His hope was for SCOTUS to REVERSE this! Here's to your being so nice-nice to the enemy, John McCain!
The libs will agree and think this is great until George Soros goes bankrupt and stop shelling out. THEN, it will become unconstitutional and a crime to contribute. "For thee…but not for me….", the Liberal morality.
Harsh words about a great American hero who bravely spent 8-years in a Vietnamese prison camp and received our nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor. So I guess his claim to fame is being more a patriot and more of an American they someone like you who can prance around with an upside down American flag as an Avatar in the most disrespectful way. Have an ounce of class.
If unions had to get the approval of its member (simple majority) to run a political ad it would be one thing. But….
Does that fit in your mind set Pat? I think the majority opinion addressed just that issue. The side of the aisle now has competition. Weren't we just recently informed that competition was a good thing for America? Yep, I think so!
Neither is a union 'a person' and they donate huge sums of stolen dues money to candidates campaigning for office at all levels. Corporations are likely to be all over the board on candidate preference, but they are not likely to support a socialist or communist candidate, and that's saying something these days.
Good! McCain-Feingold was anti-free speech. When the government can step in and tell anyone that they cannot speak freely – on a political issue no less! – that is a clear and gross violation of the 1st Amendment. I can't believe anyone is brain-dead enough to even argue this point.
So you prefer the approach of a Jeffery Imelt, who uses his corporate influence to buy into the Democratic administration and influence legislation (EG: Cap & Trade) because the results will likely favor his business over the competition?
A corporation is a legal person, in fact, but more importantly It is an association of persons–also protected under the 1st
JJ: "Just think, we could stay in Iraq even though most people (if you think the pulse of the people may be felt by studying the polls) disagreed with that decision."
Actually, most people clearly agreed with the decistion, so this is a very bad example.
What happened is that people agreed with it, then over time, changed their minds… in no small part due to how coprorations portrayed it (news corporations), as well as minority political figures that worked hard to get people to change their minds so that they could regain political power (and once in power, have been content for years to continue and even expand our wars abroad).
SMS
Free speech should be the right of everyone whether you agree with them or not. End of story.
I wonder what this ruling does for "Hate Speech" Crimes?????
Kennedy was on the right side for once. Entities, including corporations, are people with common goals promoting what's good for themselves directly or indirectly through the entity. A union (generally leftist) should have no advantage over any other entity. McCain, as usual, was an idiot for supporting this in the first place because it hurt free-enterprise Americans including Republicans. McCain did it to serve himself after getting caught up in a sting that nailed all Democrats. Liberal, socialist and communist Democrat refuse to recognize that freedom includes economic freedom.
Sure, but if the stockholders don't like the decision of the Board they can always sell their stock or replace that offenfing member when it elects it Executive Board.
1. No they shouldn't be able to vote.
2. No they shouldn't hold office.
They shouldn't pay taxes either. In fact they do not. Any taxes levied on a corp is payed by the consumers using their products.
It's simple. If I owned a business and was taxed, I'd pass the tax on to the consumer. No way I'd take a cut in my profits.
Funny thing about law.
Actually I was a jet pilot. McShame was quite a good jet pilot. I know men that flew with him. The problem was the surface to air missile operator was much better at his job.
Your father is an idiot.
You may not think it is a “good idea” to limit the political speech of a corporation…but regardless, the US Constitution says Congress cannot pass a law that infringes upon political speech. That is the issue….Political speech is the most protected classification of speech we as Americans possess…What is important to note is that the US Congress does not have the absolute power to pass whatever law it thinks is "good for the people"….its power to pass legislation is limited…this is the point missing in the health care debate….Does Congress even have the authority to pass such a bill….Just because a few, or even a majority, may think a piece of legislation is "good for the people" this does not mean Congress has been given the authority under the Constitution to pass the legislation.
Absolutely..they're the ones most at risk. Members of Executive Boards are put there by a vote of the stockholders, Those who purchase a part of the corporation in the hope their investment will pay dividens…just like I hope my bank will pay me a good rate of interest. If it doesn't I can always close my account and take my money elsewhere.
I love how people always refer to Conservatives and right wing as "NAZI"…"National Socialist German Workers' Party". It seems to me that the left tends to push socialist agendas. Explain that one to me. Just because the german "right" of the time was "NAZI" does not mean that side of politics is always that way. Also the politics of the"right" in one area is not always so in another. Modern democrat compared to 1800's democrat.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law did plenty to keep George Soros and ACORN from altering the landscape of Congress.
That's why the dizzying myriad of "organizations" do the dirty work for them.
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing.
If you study the source records you will see the FF wanted only Corporation to pay taxes to the federal government. People making a living through the free market place were not to be taxed on their income or profits.
As to this ruling…free speech is free speech they got it right.
You must be logged in to post a comment.