While attention has focused on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare and immigration rulings, it’s worth noting that the justices recently also reaffirmed their 2010 decision regarding the First Amendment and political speech. The Citizens United case has caused great consternation among progressives and others who believe Congress can legislate the influence of money out of politics.
While attention has focused on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare and immigration rulings, it’s worth noting that the justices recently also reaffirmed their 2010 decision regarding the First Amendment and political speech. The Citizens United case has caused great consternation among progressives and others who believe Congress can legislate the influence of money out of politics.
In the 5-4 ruling, the court rejected parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, holding that various collections of individuals — corporations, unions and other interests — are acting in accordance with the Bill of Rights when they spend money on political ads or other materials intended to influence voters as an election nears.
Opponents of the decision had hoped the justices would use a Montana case upholding that state’s ban on corporate campaign spending to revisit Citizens United.
Instead, the same 5-4 majority — without even hearing arguments — tossed out the Montana law last month.
“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
This is a victory for the First Amendment.
Those who revile Citizens United have yet to satisfactorily explain how they can embrace laws that — as lawyers for the government acknowledged — would prohibit the publication of certain politically themed books and pamphlets. This is not something any free society should tolerate.
Instead of imposing broad bans on political discourse that run counter to the Bill of Rights, the most promising means of limiting the role of money in politics remains improved transparency for direct contributions, while also ensuring that government respects its constitutional boundaries.
The majority justices got this one right — again.
This editorial appeared June 29 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal