Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws

The decades-old system of rules that govern the financing of the nation's political campaigns was partially upended by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional election season.

Thursday's landmark decision, approved by a 5-4 margin, could unleash a torrent of corporate and union cash into the political realm and transform how campaigns for president and Congress are fought in the coming years. Republicans and Democrats scrambled to untangle the full implications of the decision to overturn a 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling that barred corporations from spending freely to support or oppose candidates.

"It's the most major Supreme Court decision in the area of campaign finance in decades — and a significant First Amendment decision," says Nathaniel Persily, a political scientist and law professor at Columbia University. "We don't know its practical impact yet, and I don't think it's the last word from the court," he said.

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns. Some important limits do remain intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.

President Barack Obama said, "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. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

"I think it takes an already bulked up [election season] and puts it on steroids," said Evan Tracey, president of TNS Media Intelligence's Competitive Media Analysis Group, which tracks campaign finance spending. He suggested the decision's biggest impact could be on last-minute spending in major races. Campaign finance advocates said the court's decision could also fuel more spending across the board.

Tim Kay, director-political strategy at National Cable Communications, said there would be no doubt about increased spending, but that's not necessarily a good thing. In a statement, he said that the boost to overall spending "will clutter the airways, hampering the ability of the candidates to define themselves and their opponents. This decision makes it even more important to be smart and targeted with your money -- particularly candidates with limited resources."

Additional links:
Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit (NYTimes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?ref=todayspaper
Court Kills Limits On Corporate Politicking (WSJ)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274870369920457501694293009015...
Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling could bring flood of ads (LATimes)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance-anal...
Court ruling on campaign spending could pay off for GOP (LATimes)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-fallout22-2010jan22,0...
What the court's ruling does (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
High court shows it might be willing to act boldly (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
How Supreme Court voted on Citizens United v. FCC (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
Campaign finance ruling reflects Supreme Court's growing audacity (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
The Supreme Court removes important limits on campaign finance (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
Citizens United used 'Hillary: The Movie' to take on McCain-Feingold (WashPost)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR201001...
It's a new era for campaign spending (USAToday)
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100122/1acourt22_cv.art.htm
Court's campaign ruling threatens the public interest (USAToday)
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100122/editorial22_st.art.htm
Don't worry. Big-spending corporations won't dominate U.S. politics (USAToday)
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100122/editorial22_st1.art.htm
High court opens the floodgates (USAToday)
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100122/column22_st3.art.htm
Money talks, high court rules (SF Chronicle)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/22/EDIL1BLS5N.DTL
The 'Hillary' effect: What Supreme Court's ruling means for Hollywood (Variety)
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014133.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=...(Variety+-+Latest+News)&utm_content=Google+Reader