Using the First Amendment’s protection of free speech as their main argument, the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court recently ruled 5 to 4 in Citizen United vs. the Federal Election Commission to lift restrictions on lobbying and corporate political spending that had been in place for 63 years.

This ruling allows the potential use of vast corporate funds to overwhelm election campaigns and to intimidate elected officials to their cause.  Thus, giving even more power to corporations, special interests, and their lobbyists – moving America ever closer to a “plutocracy,” where the rich rule America.

The New York Times in the article “Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling” (by David D. Kirkpatrick) reports on the potential drastic consequences of the Supreme Court ruling.  Highlights from the article are below, followed by discussion questions….  Read more by clicking on the above article title.

Big Changes To Lobbying And Corporate Campaign Spending?

“Citizen United vs. the Federal Election Commission, ‘is going to flip the existing campaign order on its head,’ said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican campaign lawyer at the law-and-lobbying firm Patton Boggs …”

New Leverage By Lobbyists?

 “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.”

Intimidation By Lobbyists?

 “’We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.”

Biggest Beneficiaries Are Well-Placed Incumbents?

“The biggest beneficiaries might be well-placed incumbents whose favor companies and interests groups are eager to court.”

Biggest Impact On State And Local Governments?

 “It could also have a big impact on state and local governments, where a few million dollars can have more influence on elections.”

Democrats And Republicans Agree It’s A Bad Decision?

“In a statement shortly after the decision, President Obama called it ‘a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.’”

“Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, called it ‘a terrible mistake.’”

“Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, said in a television interview on CNN that he was ‘disappointed.’”

***** Postscripts *****

Postscript 1: To read what the Supreme Court minority thinks of the decision –  click on the New York Times article “Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit” (by Adam Liptak).

Postscript 2:  The Financial Times reports that corporations spent more money than ever lobbying members of Congress in 2009, amid the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Postscript 3: A recent Washington Post – ABC News poll found that Americans overwhelmingly (80%) oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending.

***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion *****

(1) Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling – why or why not?

(2) Do you agree with the dire political predictions set out in the article – why or why not?

(3) If corporations and special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections – how do you think this will effect electioneering politics and, ultimately, democracy in America?

(4) First Amendment freedom of speech is not always given dominance, especially, when important contravaling societal considerations are at stake – e.g., libel, slander, and certain forms of “hate speech” (disparaging others based on their race/ethnicity) are not protected under the First Amendment. ….. Do you think restricting the freedom of speech of corporations and special interests – contra to the First Amendment – is justified to protect against their dominance of elections and campaigns – why or why not?   (The Supreme Court minority thinks so.)

(5) Stare decisis is the well-established legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey legal precedents…..Do you think the Supreme Court majority justifiably ignored stare decisis by over turning 63 years of well-settled legal precedents in lobbying and campaign spending laws – why or why not?   (The Supreme Court minority thinks so.)

(6) Why do you think the Supreme Court majority decided to over turn 63 years of well-settled legal precedents with a broad-sweeping decision – thereby, opening the floodgates of political influence by corporations, special interests, and their lobbyists?

(7) Do you think the Supreme Court majority should have ruled on “narrower grounds,” which restricted the scope of their ruling to limited circumstances of lobbying and corporate campaign spending, thereby preserving stare decisis and 63 years of legal precedents – why or why not?   (The Supreme Court minority thinks so.)

(8) Do you think the Supreme Court majority miss-understood the potential grave negative consequences of their decision on politics and democracy in America – why or why not? 

(9) Do you think the decision tarnishes the Supreme Court’s image as neutral arbitrator, which instead decidedly favors corporate and business interests – why or why not?

***** References To Relevant Articles Posted On MicahsCall *****