Source: https://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/free-speech-and-hillary-the-movie/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:05:51+00:00

Document:
Updated, Sept. 9, 10:10 p.m. | Kathleen M. Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, points out that an amendment to the McCain-Feingold law sensibly resolves this case without throwing out all limits on corporate electioneering activities.
Updated, Sept. 9, 2:30 p.m. | Adam Liptak, reporting on the argument before the Supreme Court this morning, writes that Citizens United appears poised to win its case. The question now is how broad the victory will be.
Updated, Sept. 8, 10:15 p.m. | Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center joins the discussion, noting that the case shows two trends converging.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear rearguments on a case that could up-end campaign finance laws restricting corporate contributions going back to 1907. The case concerns a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton, called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group.
The group wanted to broadcast commercials for the film and to run it on a cable video-on-demand service, but in 2008 a federal district court ruled that the commercials violated a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banning the broadcast or cable transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. Opponents of the law argue that restrictions on corporate speech in elections violates the First Amendment.
Does the application of campaign finance laws to “Hillary: The Movie” violate free speech rights? What are the implications for electoral politics if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Citizens United?
Kathleen M. Sullivan is a professor and former dean of Stanford Law School. She is also a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges.
Both sides in today’s Supreme Court argument in Citizens United v. FEC swung for the fences, taking extreme positions. Counsel for Citizens United and Senator McConnell said the First Amendment bars virtually all congressional restriction of corporate expenditures on issue ads at election time. On the government’s side, both the current and former solicitors general argued that such corporate expenditures may virtually always be regulated.
But there is a middle way to steer between these two polar opposite positions, and it is in plain sight in the provision of the McCain-Feingold act that is before the Supreme Court. Known as the “Snowe-Jeffords amendment,” it says that if the act were ever found to ban corporate “electioneering communications” too broadly, then non-profit corporations should be carved out of the statute so that only for-profit corporations are bound by federal limits.
The Snowe-Jeffords amendment, while limiting G.M. and Microsoft from putting up issue ads, would allow the N.R.A. and the Sierra Club to do so.
Since Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation, the Snowe-Jeffords provision offers a narrow and logical means to resolve today’s case. But it was not presented today by the parties on either side. Instead, it was offered only in an amicus brief filed by the N.R.A. — following the lead of an amicus brief filed by the Family Research Council in the Wisconsin Right to Life case in 2007.
One key player today, however, focused closely on the Snowe-Jeffords argument. Justice John Paul Stevens, still absolutely incisive at nearly 90, acutely pressed both sides to discuss the N.R.A. brief’s argument. And he may yet cobble a plurality or majority opinion that makes Snowe-Jeffords the surprise deus ex machina to resolve today’s drama.
Such a result would avoid the need to rewrite either the statute or the court’s own precedent. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment, having been passed by Congress itself, would not require improvised judicial line-drawing between books and pay-per-view, or between ideological and non-ideological advocacy groups, as would other suggested compromises.
The amendment also would ensure that, even if G.M. and Microsoft are limited in their issue ads at election time, grassroots groups from the N.R.A. to the Sierra Club are not. Groups organized for the very purpose of advocating on issues are likely to represent the views of their supporters when they speak out at election time — making irrelevant the government’s claim that it must prevent corporate wealth from distorting shareholders’ views.
Some suggest, as Justice Stephen Breyer did today, that for-profit groups will exploit such an exception by funneling money into nonprofit groups. The Snowe-Jeffords provision, however, permits issue ads by nonprofits only if paid for by individuals. In any event, the I.R.S. would question a nonprofit organization that strayed too far from its basis for 501(c)(4) status.
The Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a measured and impressive debut today, asked Ted Olson, counsel for Citizens United, why not take a narrower course than invalidating the corporate issue ad ban in its entirety. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment offers just such a course, and one that might well command four or more pivotal votes when the court renders its decision.
Is the Supreme Court about to junk 100 years of established and prudent thinking about money and politics? The Citizens United case suggests that it is. Worse, the case – and the court’s zealous interest in conjuring questions that were not before it — signals destructive trends that could extend far beyond this case.
Let’s start with the facts. The case concerned whether a pay-per-view movie critical of Hillary Clinton should be subject to campaign laws. The lawyers argued, briefs were filed, and everyone waited for a ruling. Instead, on the last day of the term, the justices announced they wanted a rush reargument -– and asked whether longstanding cases should be overturned. This, even though neither of the litigants asked for this to be done. It had to be done quickly, in September, with minimal paperwork. It’s the judicial equivalent of a Las Vegas elopement- – it might be a good idea, but the haste suggests otherwise.
Corporations and unions, bristling with lobbyists and PACs and issue ads galore, aren’t exactly muzzled these days.
The case has moved far beyond the less-than-scintillating topic of what rules to apply to “Hillary: The Movie.” The justices could easily rule on any number of narrow grounds. If they wished, for example, they could rule that the movie falls within the campaign finance law’s exemption for news media, which carves out newspapers, television and radio stations, movies and the like. The Brennan Center, on behalf of online media organizations and journalists, made that very argument in our brief to the Court.
The case extends, too, beyond the broader question of whether the court should overrule McConnell v. FEC (which upheld the McCain-Feingold law in 2003) or the 1990 Austin case (which upheld a state ban on corporate independent spending for or against candidates). These rulings recognized there is something different about the huge capital that can be amassed in the corporate forum. Reversing them would give fierce new muscle to the everyday threats issued by lobbyists.
Lawmakers will know a “wrong” vote on a legislative amendment could yield tens of millions spent to unseat them. Understand: we’re not talking about a robust clash of democratic voices. This isn’t about Rupert Murdoch or Glenn Beck or Michael Moore or MoveOn. It’s about corporate managers, coolly spending millions of shareholder dollars as a simple business decision to keep a friend in office or boot a foe.
But the real significance of this ruling may go back much further than 2005 or even 1990. Simply, the justices’ ruling may undercut or overturn laws banning direct corporate campaign gifts to candidates. The very idea evokes shudders. Federal laws regulating corporate money in politics date back to 1907. Theodore Roosevelt, embarrassed by a campaign finance scandal, vowed, “Sooner or later, unless there is a readjustment, there will come a riotous, wicked, murderous day of atonement.” He won passage of the first federal law banning corporate campaign contributions.
In 1947, federal campaign expenditures by corporations and unions were also banned. Yet a broad ruling in this case could leave a century’s worth of protections against the undue influence of corporations constitutionally naked.
So what’s really going on? Why would the Supreme Court summon argument about the legal limits of longstanding laws when it didn’t have to do so (and really shouldn’t have)?
Two interesting trends emerge here, grand historic conflicts that will help shape the next decades of our politics. One is within the courtroom itself. On campaign finance, there’s much evidence that the swap of Justice Alito for Justice O’Connor resulted in a new five-vote bloc willing -– and in some cases eager -– to dramatically deregulate campaign finance laws. Nothing has changed except the composition of the court. Earlier this year, I wrote about a looming clash between the progressive executive and legislative branch, and a deeply conservative judiciary willing to strike down laws. It came sooner than I expected.
Many serious people object to current campaign finance laws on First Amendment grounds. But corporations and unions, bristling with lobbyists and PACs and issue ads galore, aren’t exactly muzzled these days. The First Amendment is important, but so is a workable democracy -– and a ruling that fetishizes corporate free speech rights could undercut the very structure of our election system.
Joel M. Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, has been a long-time lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and argued before the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). He is the co-author of “Better Parties, Better Government: A Realistic Program for Campaign Finance Reform.” The views expressed here are solely his own.
The Citizens United case raises a fundamental question under the First Amendment: Can the government prevent a corporation from criticizing the people who run the government?
The Supreme Court narrowly upheld McCain-Feingold in 2003, but serious doubts have surfaced about the law since then. The basis for government regulation is that Citizens United is a corporation, though a nonprofit, and accepts some limited funding from business corporations. But that describes almost every cause organization in America, from the ACLU and the NAACP to the NRA and the National Right to Life Committee. So, how can this law possibly be justified?
The court should use this occasion and broadly rule that the First Amendment belongs to all individuals and groups that exercise its freedoms.
Only people should have free speech, not corporations. But, the First Amendment doesn’t say that. Indeed, for almost a century we’ve recognized the constitutional rights of all sorts of corporations — including The New York Times -– to speak out on all sorts of issues. And, in today’s complex world, people can only amplify their individual voices by banding together with others in organizations of all sizes and shapes. A decision favoring Citizens United would properly recognize that reality.
Corporations have so much money that they will overwhelm the political process if they can spend it freely criticizing politicians. But a lot of individuals have tons of money too –- George Soros comes quickly to mind — and we don’t limit their right to speak. Why should we limit corporations?
We allow the corporate owners of the New York Times to endorse a presidential candidate, but make it a crime for the corporate owners of General Motors to pay for an ad with the same message, even though the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press equally. Moreover, approximately half the states have permitted independent corporate speech in their elections, and the sky has not fallen. A ruling for Citizens United would not open the corporate floodgates, but would end these disparities and free up more political speech.
Corporate spending on political speech can corrupt our politicians. But the court has said that independent campaign speech by individuals and groups is not corrupting -– indeed, it is at the core of the First Amendment –- so why should an independent ad paid for by a corporation be treated any differently? What happened to the public’s right to know and the marketplace of ideas? If a corporation has something important to say, why shouldn’t we members of the public be entitled to hear it and either accept it or reject it on the merits? A ruling for Citizens United would let the people decide for themselves.
The court could hand down a narrow decision, simply ruling that movies are not covered by McCain-Feingold. But I feel the court should use this occasion and broadly rule that the First Amendment belongs to all individuals and groups that exercise its freedoms.
Fred Wertheimer is the founder and president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to promote campaign finance reform and other political reforms. He is a lawyer on the amicus brief filed in the case by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21.
The Citizens United case is no longer just about the narrow grounds originally litigated about “Hillary: The Movie.” The Supreme Court is now considering a question of profound importance for our democracy: is the longstanding ban on corporations spending their immense aggregate wealth to elect or defeat federal candidates constitutional?
It has been the nation’s policy for more than a century to prohibit corporate wealth from being used to influence federal elections and officeholders. It has been the Supreme Court’s position for decades that the federal ban on corporate campaign expenditures is constitutional.
It would not take many multimillion campaigns by a corporation to defeat a House member who voted against the corporation’s economic interests.
Just six years ago in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the corporate expenditure ban, based on a record in the case that showed corporations had been using electioneering advertisements to curry favor with, and gain influence over, federal officeholders. This is the same kind of “corruption” standard the court has used in numerous past decisions to uphold the constitutionality of campaign finance laws.
The only real change that has occurred between the court’s decision in McConnell in 2003 and now is a change in the makeup of the court –- which, in and of itself, has never been considered a sufficient basis for overturning past decisions.
If in these circumstances, the Supreme Court were to overrule its past decisions and suddenly discover a brand new First Amendment right for corporations to spend their immense corporate wealth to influence federal elections and officeholders, this could only be considered “radical activism” on the part of a new “conservative” majority on the Court.
The influence-buying dangers involved in allowing corporations to flood federal elections with their immense corporate wealth are clear.
In 2005, for example, total corporate net wealth was $23.5 trillion and total net profits nearly $1 trillion, according to an I.R.S. estimate. Declaring the corporate expenditure ban unconstitutional would free up corporations in industries, such as health care, energy, and finance, among many others, to make huge campaign expenditures to elect or defeat federal officeholders, depending on how those officeholders voted.
And it would not take many $10 or $20 million campaigns by a corporation to successfully defeat a House member who voted against the corporation’s economic interests to establish the mere threat of such expenditures as sufficient to obtain undue influence over the member’s votes.
Richard L. Hasen is the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and the co-editor of the Election Law Journal. He will live-blog the audio release of the Citizens United oral argument at the Election Law Blog.
In an audacious move in June, the Supreme Court ordered reargument in the Citizens United case to consider whether to overrule two cases upholding Congress’s power to require corporations and unions to pay for federal election spending through political action committees.
The order was audacious because it ignores the court’s rule that federal statutes should be interpreted when possible to avoid constitutional questions. In Citizens United, the court could easily hold that “video-on-demand” movies simply are not covered by the McCain-Feingold law and decline to reach the First Amendment question. In fact, Citizens United abandoned the constitutional issue in the lower court and failed to raise it in its Supreme Court petition, two more reasons why the court ordinarily would not decide it.
We are moving toward a deregulated federal campaign finance system, where money flows freely and perhaps only disclosure laws remain.
What explains the court’s in-your-face reargument order?
It appears that the two “swing Justices” in this case — Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito — are ready to consider overturning the two earlier cases — Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission — upholding limits on federal election spending from corporate treasuries.
Justices Roberts and Alito both have expressed considerable skepticism about the constitutionality of these limits, but have not yet been willing to say, as Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas have, that the cases should be overruled.
Chief Justice Roberts appears interested in moving jurisprudence slowly, perhaps to bolster his reputation for moderation — Justice Scalia bemoaned the chief justice’s “faux judicial restraint” in not voting to overrule Austin in an earlier case. But if Chief Justice Roberts chooses to overrule Austin now, he can cite his earlier skepticism about corporate spending limits as a show of his moderation.
Even if the court restrains itself in Citizens United, the writing is on the wall: if the court’s members remain the same, the corporate limits eventually will fall. After that, the court could strike down contribution limits to PACs and the ban on party soft money.
We are moving toward a deregulated federal campaign finance system, where money flows freely and perhaps only disclosure laws remain. It is a world in which those with more money use their considerable funds to elect candidates of their choice and to have disproportionate influence over public policy. The unlevel playing field awaits.
It is interesting to note that the two justices pushing this case are Roberts and Alito, Bush 43’s appointees. Pres. Bush’s history as governor of Texas and as President in his appointments to the bench has not been one of looking for judges to support the right wing evangelical agenda, but judges who are extremely pro-business. Between his appointments to the bench in Texas and the massive corporate spending on judicial elections, the Texas Supreme Court swung from 75-25 supporting consumers against corporations to just the reverse. Combined with the gutting of regulatory agencies, the individual was left naked. The same pattern was repeated as President and we will find the Supreme Court will take an extreme turn towards favoring the corporation over the individual. In fact, it already has.
Money so easily corrupts, both campaigns and people, that it is astonishing this is even going to be heard. If it will pass corporations will nominate whomever they feel like to govern, and everyone who would want to get elected would have to bow to them before hand. Being under the influence of a post on Pandalous on the Clintons, I wonder what role does the movie being about Hillary play here?
The answer is simple: see ithe first amendment of the Constitution.
Why doesn’t the court simply declare that every Fortune 500 company in league with every individual with assets over $100,000,000 caucus every few years in order to decide who will hold major political offices in the US. As if those who have the loot don’t already disproportionately influence our country’s elections, the court will no doubt declare that they be handed even greater power. As it stands now, politicians must devote more time to fundraising from the rich than to any other activity, repaying their benefactors in ways that often contradict the common good. Perhaps we should aim for transparency and simply legalize out-and-out bribes.
Isn’t a level playing field unamerican?
Corporations should not have free speech, period. And money does not and should never be equal to free speech.
Free speech is a right granted to individuals by the Constitution. The idea that corporations are some sort of super individual that deserve free speech rights is ludicrous.
I do find it a good point – why can New York Times endorse Barak Obama for President, while General Motors cannot?
I got dizzy from the circular reasoning of the ACLU lawyer.
Mr. Gora says “for almost a century we’ve recognized the constitutional rights of all sorts of corporations… to speak out on all sorts of issues.” True, though the Supreme Court fabricated those rights by reading ideas into a Constitution that never mentions corporations (see //reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/ ). But for century, we’ve also banned corporations from overtly controlling elections.
The valid arguments he makes show why Citizens United should prevail on a narrow non-constitutional ruling. None justify the radical action being pondered by a Court whose Chief swore his respect for precedent.
I hope ACLU members will ask why their dues are being used to advance the agenda of global corporations, rather than focusing on human beings.
Corporations are already step-children of the state and do not deserve or warrant the full protections of the bill of rights. A corporation cannot vote or have a religion or bear arms or in any meaningful way exercise many of the rights that are protected in the bill of rights. Why should a corporation have co-equal speech rights with an individual? And the argument that money is speech is truly at the heart of all that has been corrupted in this nation. The government is for the people not for the corporations. This is simple and should be apparent to all libertarians that actually care about protecting individual freedoms.
The playing field has never been level, and humans will never make it so. Denying corporations freedom of political speech simply increases the influence of the powerful entities who still have a voice: government, political parties, wealthy individuals, and the media. None of these voices are inherently more virtuous than corporations. None of them can be trusted to serve some higher good over their own interest.
If we silence all the corrupt voices, we will only be left with silence. All parties are corrupt; anyone given power will abuse it. One of the few true safeguards we have against corruption, and indeed against tyranny, is freedom of speech guaranteed to ALL. May the justices swiftly demolish these unconstitutional, unconscionable limits on speech, and may we never see the likes of campaign finance reform again.
Corporations have all the benefits of “personhood” without any of the accountability that goes with it.
And of course the Activist Judges on the Supreme Court will look to overturn longstanding precedent as fits their ideological agenda.
Corporations by legal definition are a nexus of contracts therefore they do not deserve civil rights, constitutional rights or any rights outside of the scope of the contracts that created them.
NO, banning political contributions by corporations is NOT a voilation of the First Amendment — NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT. This is a stupid question for stupid people, namely the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) on the Supreme Court of Stupidity.
And corporate “personhood” is a complete and total DISGRACE.
I’m disappointed by the lack of depth in the commentary.
What legal basis the court uses to extend first amendment rights to corporate citizens? What is the logical basis of the argument and what precludes the court from using the same logic to extend other constitutional rights (the right to bear arms for instance)?
The intention of the legislation McCain-Feingold is clear which takes care of Mr. Gora’s argument. The democratic will instated the law and could clearly depose it through the same legislative process. The question is why and to what extent an artificial citizen enjoys constitutional rights. The consequences of such ruling are (or should be) beyond the consideration of the court for ruling in this case.
The Constitution of the United States of America, including the Amendments to it, is a social contract between the Citizens of the United States and the Government of the United States.
Citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech, Religion, etc; protections against institutional discrimination and have the right to vote into office those whom they see most fit to rule in their stead.
Corporations are inherently excluded from this contract. Therefore, they are not guaranteed Freedom of Speech nor do they have the right to engage in the democratic process to choose leaders.
That is why all corporate AND union contributions must be eliminated. Because it is only the citizens of the United States who have a legitimate voice in elections- not the artificial organization we create in the economic sphere.
I don’t get it. The people IN the corporations already have freedom of speech, and the corporation itself is just a profit machine, so what extra voice does it need, in addition to that of its members? What good would it do to have have voices in politics that say nothing but “give us more profit” in a thousand different, hidden ways? That is, after all, the only thing a corporate “voice” could possibly say, since it is the only idea that any corporation has.
Non-profits represent an interesting, but ultimately unimportant gray area. They are greatly outnumbered by for-profit companies, and the fundamental dynamic isn’t that different: the organization exists to ensure the productivity and survivability of its members’ endeavors. It doesn’t have any ideas of its “own,” and cannot possibly speak for “itself.” Axes, empty glasses, and corporations don’t need a “freedom of speech.” They can’t speak, because they have no consciousness.
1. Why do corporations or other business entities have free speech rights at all? Answer: Because the Supreme Court, in its sometimes questionable wisdom, decided to treat corporations and other business entities as “persons” under the law!
2. Why were corporations and other business entities granted this artificial status? Answers: A. Because corporations wield disproportionate amounts of power through the leveraging of disproportionate amounts of wealth. B. Because the Justices (at least of plurality of them) are true believers in the American model of global capitalism with its foundation of megalithic corporations serving as the economic lynchpins of our republic’s power and status in the world. And C. Because the Supreme Court’s Justices, on both side of the narrow political spectrum which they tend to occupy, have a history of creative rationalization in formulating opinions to reaify their political, philosophical, and economic beliefs.
As long as we continue to grant “person” status to corporations and other business entities, we will continue to be hoisted by our own petards, when it comes to limiting their “rights” under the constitution and other laws.
Corporations are not people and should not be give the rights of a person.
Yes it does. Conversation over.
The First Amendment is the one we give the very widest latitude too, and it is now the one in most jeopardy.
I love John McCain, but he blew this one bigtime.
Government has no business regulating any kind of speech. Since government is always filled with political partisans, you know the law can never be fairly applied.
And even if it could, it should not.
Let each and every person, and each and eevery group have their say.
I see no problem with allowing further free speech, even from corporations. But because corporations can disproportionately benefit from government contracts, I think it may behoove Congress to follow-up an over-turning with law that says any corporation currently on the payroll of the government cannot spend any money to influence that election, free speech or not. Additionally, any corporation not contracted to the government, but spending money on a campaign, can then not be contracted by the government for the subsequent four years. This will enable free-speech, but restrict the corrupting influence of putting friends into office simply to provide contracts. How would this work with non-profits like Citizens United? I have no clue. Maybe the same rules would apply, and it would be the corporations responsibility to tell its non-profit that it is contracted to the government, so none of its funds can go towards electioneering.
Of course, we could always do the sensible thing and just disallow newspapers their opportunity to endorse candidates. In fact, I might like that better.
I heard a lawyer on NPR recently make the interesting point that whereas individual voters are interested in all sorts of things – religion, health, public safety, education, scientific research – corporations were specifically created to be interested in only one thing: Making money. There’s nothing wrong with that, and they’re very good at it, but their narrowness of interest is a principle reason why they do not (or SHOULD not) share the same rights as voting citizens, and why extremely rich individuals – voters! – like Bill Gates or George Soros do not pose a threat to the public welfare when they bring their large fortunes to bare in expressing their views.
While free speech is important, I wonder if the right to free and fair elections is more important. It’s clear that money wins the elections under the current system. Financing elections publicly may be the only workable solution.
For those arguing for the restraint of ‘Corporations’ I would ask – would you also lobby for the same restraints on Labor Unions. Unions have similar resources, management, motivation as corporations and yet they, like the NY Times, can endorse a candidate. The artifices introduces by McCain-Feingold are just that artifices.
The Debit Card: Trap or Sound Choice?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.