The Tea Party Stupid believe judicial activism occurs when liberal justices refuse to base their decisions on the Ten Commandments. People who understand the Law know judicial activism occurs when a court rules beyond the scope of the issue, or issues, of the case before it. This case raised an important, but narrow, Constitutional question; however, the conservatives on the Court decided to engage in a fit of judicial activism.
From Justice Stevens’ dissent:
The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the
appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United
is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political
action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets.
Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and
promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it
wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to
broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days
before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s
nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,”
ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens
United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury
to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion
that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer
to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided.
Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must
rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-
profit corporations and unions to decide this case. [1]
The dissenters recognized the necessity of protecting political speech; however, there are always limits on speech, political, or otherwise. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre, you cannot engage in defamation or slander. Indeed, the law places many restrictions on political speech, even speech by individuals. To wit:
The election context is distinctive in many ways, and the
Court, of course, is right that the First Amendment closely
guards political speech. But in this context, too, the au
thority of legislatures to enact viewpoint-neutral regula
tions based on content and identity is well settled. We
have, for example, allowed state-run broadcasters to ex
clude independent candidates from televised debates.
Arkansas Ed. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666
(1998).48 We have upheld statutes that prohibit the distri
bution or display of campaign materials near a polling
place. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191 (1992).49 Al
though we have not reviewed them directly, we have never
cast doubt on laws that place special restrictions on cam
paign spending by foreign nationals. See, e.g., 2 U. S. C.
§441e(a)(1). And we have consistently approved laws that
bar Government employees, but not others, from contrib uting to or participating in political activities. See n. 45,
supra. These statutes burden the political expression of
one class of speakers, namely, civil servants. Yet we have
sustained them on the basis of longstanding practice and
Congress’ reasoned judgment that certain regulations
which leave “untouched full participation … in political
decisions at the ballot box,” Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter
Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 556 (1973) (internal quotation
marks omitted), help ensure that public officials are “suffi
ciently free from improper influences,” id., at 564, and
that “confidence in the system of representative Govern
ment is not … eroded to a disastrous extent,” id., at 565. [2]
Is your head hurting yet? Don’t worry, it gets better; this from that towering pillar of judicial excellence Clarence Thomas:
Political speech is entitled to robust protection under
the First Amendment. Section 203 of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has never been
reconcilable with that protection. By striking down §203,
the Court takes an important first step toward restoring
full constitutional protection to speech that is “indispensa
ble to the effective and intelligent use of the processes of
popular government.” McConnell v. Federal Election
Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 265 (2003) (THOMAS, J., concurring
in part, concurring in judgment in part, and dissenting in
part) (internal quotation marks omitted). I dissent from
Part IV of the Court’s opinion, however, because the
Court’s constitutional analysis does not go far enough.
The disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in
BCRA §§201 and 311 are also unconstitutional. See id., at
275–277, and n. 10. [3]
Thomas then goes on to say “Congress may not abridge the ‘right to anonymous Speech’ “[4] Justice Thomas would not only allow unlimited political contributions by Walmart, but would seek to keep the source of those contributions secret; the invisible hand of the market, indeed. Thankfully, that bit of wrongheadedness is not in the actual opinion but, knowing Scalia’s penchant for legal gymnastics, it was probably a near thing. If Congress moves to enhance those disclosure requirements, however, the Court’s conservative majority would likely toss out all the reporting and disclosure regulations.
That the Court attempted to draw a distinction between domestic and foreign actors is irrelevant. For example: Company X is 49% owned by a Chinese bank and 51% owned by Americans. Technically, Company X is American; however, no company may legally, or ethically, ignore the wishes of 49% of its ownership. Of course, we are presuming a solitary entity or individual owns the remaining 51% (almost unheard of in American business). Therefore, you have a situation where the major (not necessarily the majority) shareholder is a foreign government.
However, things get worse: the Court has allowed corporations to spend money not just on issue ads, but also on ads for or against specific candidates. Just imagine Iranian, Chinese, and Venezuelan front companies set up all over the United States, ready to spend unlimited sums of cash to oppose or endorse specific candidates. If you cannot see where this is headed then you probably belong to a Tea Party.
That the Tea baggers look upon this ruling as some sort of victory is merely another example of their irrational hatred of all things Obama; their hatred blinds them to the fact that, if nothing is done, there will soon be no Democratic Party, or Republican Party, or Tea Party for that matter. There will only be the IBM Party, the Microsoft Party, and the Toyota Party.
If the Tea Party Stupid believe they are getting a raw deal from the federal government now, they really won’t like the deal they get from Walmart.
Please read the entire opinion here: http://www.scotusblog.com/...
References
[1] 558 U. S. __ (2010), Opinion of STEVENS, J., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 08–205, CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, [January 21, 2010], p. 1 Para 2
[2] 558 U. S. __ (2010), Opinion of STEVENS, J., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 08–205, CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, [January 21, 2010], p. 31 Para 2
[3] 558 U. S. __ (2010), Opinion of THOMAS, J., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 08–205, CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, [January 21, 2010], p. 1 Para 3
[4] 558 U. S. __ (2010), Opinion of THOMAS, J., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 08–205, CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, [January 21, 2010], p. 1 Para 4