Building A Progressive Future

Today, with its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court rejected decades of precedent and declared that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as live citizens.

Thanks to the Roberts Court, mega-banks that are using billions of our bailout dollars for obscene bonuses can now use our money to help place their hand-picked candidates into the halls of power.

Take action to push back on this affront to citizen-powered democracy here.

And, view Progressive Future's press release here.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, rejects the contention that Congress may treat corporations differently than citizens with respect to free speech rights.  This not only overrules both McConnell v. FEC (2003) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), it contravenes the logic of the UNANIMOUS decision in 1982’s FEC v. National Right to Work Committee. 

That decision upheld the constitutional requirement that corporations establish “separate segregated funds” (i.e. PACs) in order to engage in political speech.  Although Justice Kennedy distinguishes the case because it applied to a corporation with a PAC that made direct contributions to candidates, the logic applies equally to independent expenditures.  In National Right to Work Committee (NRWC), the Court said:

"In order to prevent both actual and apparent corruption, Congress aimed a part of its regulatory scheme at corporations.  The statute reflects a legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation.  While 441b restricts the solicitation of corporations and labor unions without great financial resources, as well as those more fortunately situated, we accept Congress' judgment that it is the potential for such influence that demands regulation.  Nor will we second-guess a legislative determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared.  As we said in California Medical Assn. v. FEC, the 'differing structures and purposes' of different entities 'may require different forms of regulation in order to protect the integrity of the electoral process...

...The governmental interest in preventing both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption of elected officials has long been recognized...and there's no reason why it may not in this case be accomplished by treating unions, corporations, and similar organizations differently from individuals."

As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, referring to the NRWC case, “

We have unanimously concluded that [Congress  placing special limitations on campaign spending by corporations] ‘reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process…and have accepted the legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation…”

This is a huge blow to the integrity and fairness of our democracy.  Citizens should not take it lying down.  We must make clear to our leaders that we'll tolerate no more Supreme Court justices who believe corporations have the same free speech rights as citizens.

Take action here.