[Written for my second semester American Politics regarding the landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It’s a short but sweet analysis drawn from a couple different news sources.]
On Thursday, 21 January of this year, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Citizens United in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, causing an about face in the laws which have governed elections for over a century. The decision, which saw a narrow vote of five to four, has been among the most controversial news topics of recent weeks, and has garnered much criticism from varying ends of the political spectrum. Perhaps among the most notable of the decision’s critics is President Obama, who has openly declared his opposition to the court’s opinion on numerous occasions; prime among them his referencing the decision in his first State of the Union address.
Justice Kennedy’s opinion made reference to the statutes and precedents the court’s decision overturned, and specifically pointed out in his opening that, in this case, the court was asked to reexamine McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and the earlier Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, as well as 2 U. S. C. §441b. The former two cases, taking place in 2003 and 1990 respectively (Cornell Citizens United), had dealt with campaign finance law and the ability of the complaining parties to contribute to independent media campaigns (that is, media campaigns promoted by third parties aside from the candidate him or herself). These two decisions went alongside Section 441b of Title 2 of the US Code, and upheld the law which defined limitations on these sorts of contributions (Cornell US Code). The majority upheld, and Justice Kennedy outlined in the opinion, that these previous decisions and statutes violated the first amendment in limiting the funds that entities could contribute to independent campaign efforts based upon their corporate identities (Cornell Citizens United).
As the National Journal’s Eliza Carney is quick to point out, however, this reversal in campaign finance law is not as extensive as some people seem to believe, specifically because of the “independent media campaigns” outlined above: “Second, the court’s dramatic reversal does not threaten the existing ban on direct corporate and union campaign contributions,” she explains, “So while those players may now lavish money from their treasuries on independent campaign expenditures, they still may not donate directly to candidates.” Eliza’s criticism extends further, as she outlines later her fears of undue corporate and union influence in elections (Carney). The editorial voice of the Wall Street Journal, however, stands in stark disagreement with Ms. Carney’s analysis of the situation. “Freedom has had its best week in many years. On Tuesday, Massachusetts put a Senate check on a reckless Congress,” it starts, referencing Scott Brown’s ascent to the Kennedy throne, “and yesterday the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political speech by overturning some of Congress’s more intrusive limits on election spending.” The editorial continues mainly in supporting the decision for its Constitutional roots, and it optimistically opines that someday the Court may overturn further restrictions on corporate and other donations (Wall Street Journal).
Of course, these examples of opposition and support, respectively, are commonplace. Unique is the opinion of the decision’s biggest detractor: President Obama. As the BBC reported on the day of the decision, President Obama was quoted as saying it was a major victory for his usual nemeses: “…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 (BBC News).” Obama also used his weekly radio address to assault Citizens United, going so far as to use inflamed rhetoric that the ruling “strikes at our democracy itself (Burnes).” Of course, these statements pale in comparison to his reference to Citizens United on the 27th of January during the State of the Union. The President declared that the decision was a massive mistake, that it would “open the floodgates,” and that it had reversed “a century of law (Toobin).” Obama’s statement, placing him among the decision’s largest detractors, drew a reaction from one the the decision’s largest supporters: Justice Alito. Alito’s reaction to the President’s declaration hardly went unnoticed, and became a major headline overnight as cameras caught Alito giving a reaction most commentators thought unbecoming of a justice: Alito was seen sitting amongst his fellow justices shaking his head, and while audio could not be heard, his lips clearly declared: “Not true, not true.” Alito’s reaction stands in contrast to the image often portrayed of the Supreme Court justice: stately, reserved; above the political machinations of the District. This contrast is where much of the controversy over his reaction stems (Toobin). President Obama, however, has received much the same criticism in addition to that from Alito over his blatant snipe at the court. As The Washington Post reports, numerous legal experts have published opinions on both the decision itself and the ensuing debate. The Post quotes Lucas Powe, an expert on the Court from the University of Texas law school: “I can’t ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that.” The closest example Powe was able to cite was a comment made by FDR during his 1937 address to Congress (Barnes).
Some legal experts, according to the same Washington Post article, are now calling into question future relations between the Court and the executive branch. The article cites the Court’s seemingly forced appearance at such events as the State of the Union: a cadre of black-clad stoics who are meant to be seen as immune to the partisan, boisterous crowd surrounding it. Add to this such high officers of state as the President attacking the Court’s decision, and some validity is added to the idea that Powe puts forth: “I do not expect to see justices at the next State of the Union address (Barnes).” No matter what these events formulate into further down the road, it is almost certain that the relationship between the executive and judicial branches will fundamentally change. Whether or not this means the Court will not attend the next Address is left in question, and that question will not be answered for nearly a year.
Works Cited
Barnes, Robert. “Reactions split on Obama’s remark, Alito’s response at State of the Union.” The Washington Post. 29 Jan 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012802893.html?sid=ST2010012803706>.
Burnes, Judith. “Obama Assails Supreme Court Ruling On Political Advertising.” Wall Street Journal. 23 Jan 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100123- 700221.html>.
Carney, Eliza. “Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United.” National Journal Online. 21 Jan 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20100121_2456.php>.
Toobin, Jeffrey. “Alito’s Face.” The New Yorker. 28 Jan 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/alitos-face.html>.
“CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N.” Cornell University Law School. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html>.
“A Free Speech Landmark.” Wall Street Journal. 22 Jan 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016843479815072.html>.
“US Code: Title 2, § 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations.” Cornell University Law School. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/441b.html>.
“US Supreme Court overturns campaign spending limit.” BBC News. 21 Jan 2010. Web. 16 Feb 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8473253.stm>.
Блог Матвея 