U.S. Supreme Court to consider corporate campaign contributions

Do you think the big corporations already have enough control over our government? Or should they have more? The U.S. Supreme Court may soon decide.

Today, September 9, the Supremes are set to hear arguments in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case could overturn the longstanding rules barring corporations from making political contributions in federal elections. This would make it even easier for our elected representatives to prostitute themselves to the highest corporate bidder.

On July 29, Jeff Clements and Clements Law Office, LLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of five organizations urging the Court not to overturn the existing rules. The participating organizations are the Program on Corporations, Law, and Democracy, the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee on Corporations & Democracy, and the Clements Foundation.

Jeff Clements summarized his side's argument as follows:

"The notion that corporations have the same speech rights as people under our Bill of Rights is contrary to the words, history, spirit, and intent of our Constitution. The organizations that joined to bring these arguments to the Court have worked with others for many years to empower democratic self-government. They remind us that corporations do not vote, speak, or act as people do, but are products of government policy to achieve economic and charitable ends. As such, corporations need not be allowed to influence our elections if Congress and state governments judge that such influence is detrimental to democracy."

Good point.

Some good background on the case from WILPF:

The Supreme Court is considering overturning federal campaign regulations for corporations, originally enacted in 1907, and may soon overrule previous Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the constitutionality of legislative restrictions on corporate money in politics.

The case now before the Court began when a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation calling itself Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of a federal ban on expenditures for "electioneering communications" by corporations and labor unions within 60 days of an election. The ban is part of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Under the Act, corporations and labor unions may still contribute to Political Action Committees.

Citizens United argued that the restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the Constitution as applied to the corporation that sought to distribute an anti-Hillary Clinton movie during the 2008 presidential primaries. A panel of three federal district court judges upheld the regulation of corporate expenditures, and agreed that the Federal Election Commission could enforce the law. The District Court relied on a 2003 Supreme Court case, McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that had ruled that the corporate expenditure regulation did not violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court overrules McConnell and Austin vs. MI Chamber of Commerce, First Amendment rights claimed by corporations will be significantly expanded and local, state, and federal governments will be further restricted in the ability to regulate corporations and corporate influence on our democratic processes.

Benito Mussolini once said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." And, depending on how the Supreme Court decides this case, we may find ourselves a step or two closer to a kind of government that Mussolini would be proud of.

>> Download the brief.

>> Read the press release announcing the brief.

And stay tuned for news in this case. A lot is riding on this.