The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations, nonprofits and labor unions can use their own treasuries to fund political advertisements and influence federal elections during the crucial days before citizens vote.

The 5-to-4 decision reverses previous interpretations of election law by federal agencies and will have a huge impact on the 2010 elections because it will allow companies to spend millions to help elect and defeat candidates for Congress. The court, however, did rule that such new spending would have to be disclosed.

The decision overturns the previously defined distinctions between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections.

The court ruled in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which involved a documentary called "Hillary: The Movie." The conservative nonprofi Citizens United argued that its film, which was released in January 2008 in the midst of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid, wasn't a campaign message.

But the FEC said the nonprofit's plan ran afoul of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (PL 107-155), which orders the FEC to regulate and "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office." Such independent expenditures are regulated when they air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Advocates of the campaign finance overhaul predicted a tidal wave of money would start flowing into the upcoming elections.

In a joint statement anticipating which direction the court would go, representatives from the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and Democracy 21 wrote that the ruling would "open the door to the corrupting influence that would flow from such expenditures, as corporations and unions would use their spending, or the threat or promise of such spending, as a means to influence decision-making by Congress."

Corporations and unions will still be banned from donating directly to federal candidates, which was outlawed in 1907.

But the decision will allow such moneyed interests to do the next best thing -- spend unlimited capital to expressly advocate the election of candidates for Congress and the White House.

Free speech and anti-regulation groups such as the Center for Competitive Politics applauded the Supreme Court's decision.

"This is not a radical decision because more than half of the states already have these provisions allowing unions and corporations to spend their general treasury funds on direct advocacy," said Jeff Patch, the organization's communications director. "There are not any cases of corruption due to independent expenditures that anyone can point to."

Courtesy: CQ Politics/Yahoo News

 

blog comments powered by Disqus