When Senator Chuck Schumer staged an elaborate press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court to unveil his Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act ("DISCLOSE Act") he noted that:
"Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide … so I think there’ll be many fewer of them."
His words revealed the true motivation of this legislation – it is not transparency but rather silencing speech in this critical election year. The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC restored the First Amendment protection to political speech. Small businesses, corporations, unions, and membership based organizations may now have a voice in the public discourse. The Democratic leadership that is tasked with re-electing incumbent politicians and trying to minimize Democratic losses this November...
On July 27, 2010 the Senate failed to advance the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”). The leaders of the Democratic Party including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and President Barack Obama crafted the legislation to silence speakers whose rights were restored by the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.
While Congressional leaders spent six months reacting to the Citizens United decision our economy continued to teeter on the brink. The liberal elites focused their energies on the DISCLOSE Act rather than focusing on meaningful fiscal policy to help strengthen our economy.
Reid and Schumer had planned to pass the DISCLOSE Act by the Fourth of July so that they could regulate and silence political speakers in the November elections. Once this was no longer a viable option, I assumed they would return to the business of promoting economic growth, saving jobs, and preventing massive tax increases from stifling our economy.
Statement on DISCLOSE Act Vote In U.S. Senate From Citizens United President David N. Bossie
In response to the U.S. Senate failing to invoke cloture on the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections ("DISCLOSE Act") David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United, released the following statement:
"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC protected the First Amendment right to political speech. Today that right remains intact, despite efforts by Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer to restrict the rights of the American people to join together and speak out against elected officials."
"The Senate's failure to invoke cloture on the deceptively named DISCLOSE Act is a victory for the First Amendment rights of all citizens. Senator Schumer's DISCLOSE Act was little more than an attempt to impact the November elections and limit Democrat losses in the House and Senate. As congressional and presidential approval ratings continue to plummet, it is no surprise that President Obama, Senator Reid, and Speaker Pelosi were ready to sacrifice our First Amendment rights in pursuit of short term political gains."
Citizens United and Conservative Leaders Urge Senate to Reject Nomination of Elena Kagan: An Inexperienced Rubber Stamp
The Senate should reject Kagan's nomination and urge President Obama to nominate
someone who is in the mainstream of American legal thought. Because of her extreme approach
to analyzing the Constitution and results orientated philosophy the Senate should delay any final
action until all documents are released.
Today the Senate returns to session having not yet addressed Senator Chuck Schumer's troubling legislation, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act ("DISCLOSE Act"). Senator Schumer sought and failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act – a bill that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans – by the Fourth of July, the day on which we celebrate our nation's independence.
The DISCLOSE Act is a desperate attempt to influence the November elections, and minimize Democrat losses. Senator Schumer and the legislation's other sponsors aim to have a law on the books that will take effect prior to November regardless of whether a regulatory system is in place to enforce the burdensome new reporting requirements. The Act, its reporting burdens, and penalties are set to take effect 30 days after it has been signed by President Obama.
On Tuesday President Obama met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. I am disappointed that President Obama did not take this opportunity to reinforce his commitment to our allies in the Middle East by pledging stronger action to stop Iran's march towards a nuclear weapon before it's too late. From the first days of his presidential campaign through today, President Obama has displayed a dangerous naiveté when it comes to the threat that Iran poses to our allies in the Middle East and to the United States itself. History demonstrates that sanctions are not a cure-all for regimes bent on destroying other peaceful nations.
These sanctions have only emboldened Ahmadinejad. He has dismissed theses sanctions stating that "they thought that by having meetings and talking to each other and signing papers they could stop a great nation's progress." He has boasted "Iran is much greater than what they can perceive in their small minds. We know that if this Iranian civilization awakes then there would be no more room for arrogant, corrupt and bullying powers." The President must step up to this challenge before Iran has the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons.
WASHINGTON Two splendid recent developments have highlighted how campaign finance "reforms" have become the disease they pretend to cure. In Arizona and in Congress, measures ostensibly aimed at eliminating corruption or the "appearance" thereof illustrate the corruption inherent in incumbents writing laws that regulate political competition by rationing political speech.
The Supreme Court has blocked implementation of Arizona's Clean Elections Act. Under it, candidates who accept taxpayer funding of their campaigns receive extra infusions of tax dollars to match funds raised by competitors who choose to rely on voluntary contributions. The law punishes people who do not take taxpayer funds.
WASHINGTON — After nine months and 73 decisions, the Supreme Court's newly concluded 2009-10 term is defined by a single case whose continuing political ramifications were on display this week in Senate hearings for Elena Kagan.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which stripped away federal limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns, was invoked repeatedly — by Democrats and Republicans— during the questioning of high court nominee Kagan. Reverberations are likely into the fall elections and the next term.
Statement from David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United, on House Passage of the DISCLOSE Act
"The DISCLOSE Act passed today by the House of Representatives is Exhibit A of why Congress cannot be trusted to regulate political speech. For crassly political purposes, Chairman Van Hollen and his lieutenants at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee decided behind closed doors that the First Amendment applies only to labor unions and certain advocacy groups that scare them sufficiently.
"Citizens who are members of other grassroots groups will be muzzled by this legislation for no reason other than that they belong to a group without the financial and lobbying muscle to exempt itself from this bill.
"Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress are hanging on to power by a quickly fraying thread, and this bill is nothing more than incumbent protection in its worst and most cynical form. The American people will not be fooled so easily.
"I strongly urge the Senate to reject this unconstitutional legislation."
Citizens United President David N. Bossie Statement on FEC's Decision To Grant CU The Media Exemption
I am very pleased that a bipartisan majority of the Federal Election Commission saw fit to grant Citizens United the media exemption. As the producers of 14 feature-length and award-winning documentaries, Citizens United is an important voice that should not be subjected to extremely burdensome campaign finance regulations simply because we are not a multi-billion dollar media corporation. Since we produced our first film in 2004, all we have ever sought is to be treated by the government in the same manner as corporate film studios and other members of the establishment media, and I thank the Commission for leveling the playing field today.
Citizens United Urges Members Of Congress To Vote Against DISCLOSE Act - 06/10/10
Today Citizens United and a coalition of over 50 other groups urged Congress to vote against the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act is the proposed legislative response to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. If passed the DISCLOSE Act would silence the voices of millions of American's whose speech was recently restored by the Supreme Court.
I have no doubt that Elena Kagan is an intelligent and capable attorney, and I do not believe, as some have asserted, that her lack of judicial experience disqualifies her for a seat on the Supreme Court. Rather, I oppose Kagan's nomination because I believe that every American has a fundamental right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to speak out for or against their elected representatives. Anyone who does not feel that way should not be put in a position of authority where she can restrict that right.
I am referring, of course, to Kagan's role in the landmark free-speech case brought by Citizens United, the grass-roots organization I lead. Even before Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement in April, President Obama telegraphed his intent to choose his next Supreme Court nominee based on that person's opposition to my organization's right to participate in the political process. Beginning with his unprecedented rebuke of the court during his State of the Union address and culminating with his remarks announcing Kagan's nomination, Obama has let it be known that opposition to the First Amendment rights of grass-roots organizations such as Citizens United has become the new litmus test.
Such a test is disturbing in many ways, not least in that handpicking nominees on the basis that they will rule a particular way on a particular issue is unsound policy. But the problem is compounded when the issue at hand is the First Amendment right of Americans to support or oppose their elected officials without fear of government reprisal.
In January, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment Congress may not limit corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. The Court overturned one of its own rulings and a provision of the McCain-Feingold legislation enacted in 2002. The decision has drawn impassioned and frequent rebukes from President Obama, who said the day it came down that it would empower "special interests and their lobbyists" at the expense of "average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." He criticized Citizens United during his State of the Union speech, with most of the justices in attendance, and, when John Paul Stevens, who wrote a lengthy dissent in Citizens United, announced his retirement, Obama cited it as the kind of decision he didn't want the next justice to support.
Last week, introducing solicitor general Elena Kagan as his choice to replace Stevens, Obama again brought up Citizens United. He mentioned it as evidence that Kagan was on the side of average Americans. "She defended bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections," he said. Her work on the case, Obama went on, "says a great deal about her commitment to protect our fundamental rights, because in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried a new line of attack against the president's high court nominee Sunday, asserting that she has been supportive of banning pamphlets and other campaign literature.
"Solicitor Kagan's office, in the initial hearing, argued that it'd be okay to ban books," the Kentucky Republican said on NBC's "Meet the Press. Sunday. "And then when there was a re-hearing, Solicitor Kagan herself, in her first Supreme Court argument, suggested that it might be okay to ban pamphlets. I think that's very troubling."
McConnell was referring to the government's argument in the controversial Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding in campaigns can't be limited by the First Amendment. In the initial hearing of the case, which took place just five days after Kagan was confirmed by the Senate, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart responded to a line of questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts about whether or not the law the government was arguing for could apply to a book that advocated a specific candidate by saying "We could prohibit the publication of the book."
Citizens United Response to Elena Kagan's Nomination
Statement from David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United
"Since Justice Stevens' retirement announcement and again in his remarks this morning, President Obama has signaled that the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission would be a litmus test for his nominee. Introducing Elena Kagan today, President Obama mentioned no other decision and applauded her for choosing CU v. FEC to be her first argument as Solicitor General, making it clear that her participation in that case was a significant factor in his decision to nominate her to the Supreme Court.
"In Elena Kagan, President Obama has found a nominee whose views on the First Amendment are at worst disqualifying and at least should be questioned rigorously. During the second round of oral arguments in CU v. FEC in September of 2009, Solicitor General Kagan argued that a statute that, by her own admission, banned books was not 'overbroad,' and that pamphlets produced with corporate funds could be censored because they are 'classic electioneering.' (Read the full exchange here)
"Authors and pamphleteers from Thomas Paine to Hamilton, Madison, and Jay writing as Publius were critical to the founding of this country. The founders, Madison in particular, recognized the danger inherent in allowing the government to regulate what could or could not be said about it and wrote the First Amendment to guard against exactly the kind of government censorship that Solicitor General Kagan advocated for in Citizens United.
"Given President Obama's reliance on her role in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the essential importance of the First Amendment to American democracy, I urge the Senate to reject Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. Every American has a fundamental right to speak out for or against their elected representatives without fear of reprisal, and a nominee who does not respect that right has no business on our nation's highest court."
March 24, 2009, was a turning point in the long-running battle to restrict political speech, aka "campaign finance reform." On that day, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the conservative activist group Citizens United challenged the provisions of the McCain-Feingold law that had prohibited it from airing a documentary film, Hillary: The Movie, through video on demand within 30 days of any 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
In the course of the argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, argued that a 1990 precedent, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, gave the government the power to limit any political communication funded by a corporation, even a nonprofit such as Citizens United. Justice Samuel Alito asked Stewart if that power would extend to censoring political books published by corporations. Stewart responded -- consistent with the government's position at all stages of the case -- that yes, it would. There was an audible hush -- if such a thing is possible -- in the court. Then Justice Alito, appearing to speak for the room, merely said, "I find that pretty incredible."
House Republicans stepped up their attacks on the Democrats' campaign finance legislation, bringing in legal heavy-hitters to testify at a House Administration meeting.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and Citizens United President Dave Bossie, whose group challenged the federal ban on political advertisements, testified before the committee Thursday on behalf of the Republicans.
Politico - Dems launch Citizens United bill by Kenneth Vogel - 04/29/10 Citizens United President David N. Bossie: "This bill is nothing more than an incumbent protection bill that aims to chill free speech"
Democratic senators took to the steps of the Supreme Court on Thursday morning to introduce legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court's January decision, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which they said will open the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest spending on campaign advertising in the 2010 congressional midterm elections.
The bill and companion House legislation, which lawmakers intend to officially introduce later in the day, was endorsed by President Barack Obama, who in his State of the Union Address in January singled out the court for criticism for its ruling and urged Congress to act swiftly to address issues it raised. In a statement issued by the White House, he urged Congress to move quickly on the legislation, which he called "a critical step in restoring our government to its rightful owners: the American people."
The legislation includes provisions to limit political ad spending by companies that received government bailouts from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as those with government contracts or that are more than 20 percent foreign owned. The legislation will also give political parties access to reduced rate air time to respond to special interest ads, and heighten disclosure requirements, forcing groups airing certain ads to name their top five donors on screen and on their websites, as well as possibly forcing corporate CEO's to appear in the ads.
Speaker Newt Gingrich made the following statement today about the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, Anna Walentynowicz, Wladyslaw Stasiak, and scores of Poland's national leaders and leading citizens:
Callista and I grieve with the Polish nation today upon learning of the loss of so many dear Polish lives. Throughout history, Poland has struggled on behalf of freedom loving peoples everywhere. In every generation, leaders rise in Poland who are willing to endure hardship and make sacrifices in defense of the dignity of man and for the cause of human liberty. The words "For your freedom and ours" truly defines Poland's contribution to the world.
One year ago in Warsaw we had the privilege to meet Chief of Staff Wladyslaw Stasiak and his wife. Mr. Stasiak, a great Polish patriot, was deeply committed to working for the common good. His professionalism, wisdom, and courage in service of Poland will serve as an example for all those who serve in government.
We especially remember today the life of Anna Walentynowicz, whose moral courage in the face of tyranny during the Gdansk shipyard strike of August 1980 changed the course of history and helped liberate her country from a communist dictatorship.
That the world would lose so many Polish heroes at once is almost beyond comprehension. Yet the deep faith of the Polish people, shared by millions around the world, will sustain them - and all of us -- in the days ahead.
Nearly one year ago, President Kaczynski, his wife Maria, Polish military leaders, the Archbishop of Warsaw, and thousands of Polish citizens gathered to dedicate a 30 foot cross in Warsaw's Pilsudski Square to remember the 1979 pilgrimage to their homeland of their fellow Pole, Pope John Paul II. Upon unveiling the memorial cross, this recording of Pope John Paul II's was played: "Today, I look at the whole of Poland. From the Tatra Mountains to the Baltic Sea and this Cross says to whole of Poland, sursum corda, lift up your hearts."
Callista and I pray that the Polish people, and especially those who have lost family members and dear friends today, will find the strength in their faith to lift up their hearts, and be sustained with peace, comfort, and the prayers of millions during this difficult time.
Fresh off a landmark victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, the conservative advocacy group Citizens United is trying to get around one part of the ruling it didn't like. The group's attorney, former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission on Monday arguing that Citizens United should not be subject to campaign-finance disclosure requirements because it is actually a "press entity" that produces and distributes documentary films.
The FEC exempts media organizations from campaign-finance laws even though many of them -- such as The Washington Post -- traffic heavily in political news and views. The FEC, Olson wrote, "should conclude that Citizens United's documentary film activities are covered by both the media and commercial transaction exceptions."
Citizens United Releases TV Ads In 7 Congressional Districts Urging Members To Vote No On Obamacare
The ads are running in the following congressional districts:
Mark Schauer (MI-7); Mike Arcuri (NY-24); Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8); Steve Kagen (WI-8); Baron Hill (IN-9); Chris Carney (PA-10); and John Salazar (CO-3).
Chief Justice John Roberts is wrong about a lot of things - most things, actually - but he may be right when he suggests that he and his black-robed colleagues should give the State of the Union address a pass. Their presence looks like a tradition whose time has come and gone.
"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts said Tuesday at the University of Alabama, elucidating the obvious. Politics? At the State of the Union? Let's all pause for a moment while we get over the shock.
Roberts was complaining about the moment in January's speech when President Obama blasted the court's anything-goes decision on campaign finance. Six justices were in attendance, including three who voted with the majority; Justice Samuel Alito couldn't keep himself from mouthing the words "not true" and shaking his head. Much comment ensued.
Even biased judges sometimes decide cases correctly, and with free speech experts of all stripes applauding the Citizens United decision, it's far from apparent the Supreme Court falsely interpreted the First Amendment for political or ideological reasons.
Refuting conventional wisdom that the man who wrote the majority opinion was nefariously motivated, left-leaning constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told Keith Olbermann: "[Justice Anthony] Kennedy is no corporate shill. He really believes in this. I've talked with him, and many people have talked with him. He does believe in the First Amendment aspects of this, and for him it is all about criminalizing speech. It's all about limiting speech." Liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald added: "If a settled proposition of law is sufficiently repugnant to the Constitution, then the Court is not only permitted, but required, to uproot it."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts address students at the University of Alabama Law School in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 9, 2010. For the life of me, I just don't get why the White House continues to try to pick a fight with the Supreme Court. I've suggested before that perhaps it's a sign President Obama intends to tap an outsider when John Paul Stevens retires, so he can beat the drum that the Court is out of touch with everyday Americans.
But after Chief Justice John Roberts made some entirely reasonable remarks yesterday -- and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just had to respond -- it's now getting ridiculous. Whether the White House has a short-term or long-term strategy or no strategy at all, it's flat-out absurd and ill-advised for the administration to think it should always have the last word. It's like my 6-year-old: "I don't LIKE your idea. I like MY idea."
It wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on -- including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy -- while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.
"Generation Zero," a new documentary produced by Citizens United head David N. Bossie and writer/director Stephen K. Bannon presents a compelling indictment of runaway federal budgets under President Barack Obama. As such, "Generation Zero" will become an important statement dedicated to expressing the core concerns of the millions of independent voters and middle-class Americans participating in the rapidly emerging tea-party movement.
"Generation Zero" is Bossie and Bannon's name for the now retiring baby boomers who were born into unprecedented prosperity made possible by the economic sacrifices of their Depression-era grandparents and the valor of their World War II-generation parents. The documentary attributes the U.S. fiscal meltdown to undisciplined baby boomers coming to maturity and gaining power.
In the 1950s, parents determined that their children would be sheltered from the economic hardships of the 1930s and the wartime sacrifices of the 1940s; their offspring were coddled growing up in a childhood of Beaver Cleaver suburbs.
If I told you that "Generation Zero" is the best movie about deficit spending and national debt that you will ever see, would you think I was making a joke? As in, how much competition can there be in such a category? OK, there's not much competition in the "fiscal film" category. But "Generation Zero" would win, because it's a brilliant movie; in reality, it's a work of art that happens to be about red-ink spending.
"Generation Zero" is going to do for the tea party movement--and the larger cause of controlling government spending--what Al Gore's 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," did for the global warming debate. There are some differences, however. As we now know, "Truth" was based on a deep fallacy, the idea that "global warming" is happening, even as the earth indeed is cooling. By contrast, "Zero" deals with one of the great struggles of our time; the trillions being spent and overspent are real. Down this wastrel road lies the chaotic fate of a banana republic--or maybe today's Greece or Zimbabwe.
And of course, whereas "Truth" won an Oscar and helped propel Gore to a Nobel Peace Prize, "Zero" is unlikely to win a single prize from left-leaning Hollywood or from even lefter-leaning international organizations such as the Nobel Institute. But, unlike "Truth," which caused no real change in American politics, "Zero" is certain to have a huge political impact here at home.
Today, Citizens United released the results of a nationwide poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates on the public's opinion of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and legislative efforts reacting to the decision.
Contrary to the results of the recent Washington Post/ABC poll, the McLaughlin poll found that when informed of the consequences of the government's attempts to regulate free speech during elections, public opinion sways markedly in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling. Notably, 68% of surveyed likely voters reject the position taken by the government in Citizens United v. FEC that the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from banning books, films, and television broadcasts about federal candidates during elections.
Moreover, likely voters view attempts to re-impose limits on political speech by politicians such as President Barack Obama and Rep. Chris Van Hollen with a great deal of suspicion, especially when informed that, as state legislators, they accepted direct corporate contributions. Less than 50% of those surveyed support legislation to restrict political spending when informed that media corporations and political parties are exempted.
David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United, said, "The results of this poll demonstrate that the American people believe, as we argued, that the First Amendment is sacrosanct, and that attempts by incumbent politicians to limit citizens' right to speak out against them are met with a great degree of cynicism. Incumbent politicians and media corporations, who have the most to lose in this fight, have been spreading disinformation ever since this decision came down - most notably with President Obama's disingenuous remarks in his State of the Union. This poll demonstrates that when the American people are armed with the truth they clearly reject the unconstitutional attempts by incumbents, supported by media corporations, to limit our First Amendment rights."
The key findings are summarized in the attached memo from McLaughlin and Associates.
"Generation Zero" screened at CPAC to a standing room only crowd and when it was over they were still standing ... and applauding. Steve Bannon's in-depth look at what caused the most recent financial crisis kept the audience engaged throughout thanks to fascinating visuals made up mostly of film clips (everything from nuclear mushroom clouds to June Cleaver) and a large and impressive list of smart, engaging commenters (full list below) who, through clever editing, break down a very complicated financial story into bite-sized pieces even a clod like me could understand.
"Generation Zero" is not a partisan political screed. Not even close. Republicans deservedly take it on the chin just as frequently as Democrats; Big Business is exposed as just as corrupt and dangerous as any academic socialist or union boss. What "Zero" is is a pro-capitalist, pro-middle class documentary that uses incontrovertible data and historical precedent to make a concrete and frequently frightening case for a coming financial collapse caused by decades of creeping socialism. And the bottom line message of the fast-moving 90 minutes is a compassionate one concerned only with the everyday, hard working Americans who are stuck with the bill.
David Bossie, founder and president of Citizens United, a conservative group which last month won a landmark Supreme Court case against the U.S. government, has become a rock star at the CPAC.David Bossie used to be just another familiar face at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Now he's the life of the party. Bossie is the founder and president of Citizens United, which writes, directs, produces and markets conservative-themed films and which last month won a landmark Supreme Court case against the U.S. government. The victory, everyone agrees, will change the face of federal campaign financing. And it's made Bossie a rock star at the CPAC. "The impact for me and for Citizens United has been, clearly, the public relations bonanza," he says. "When I say I'm from Citizens United, people know."
Almost a month after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that Congress cannot restrict the ability of unions and corporations -- that is, groups of individuals pooling their resources -- to advertise on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate, much of the media continue to distort the ruling and the law. This morning the Washington Post's editors approved this line:
[The] Supreme Court ruling allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns...
It would be fine if the court had actually allowed that. Spending on political campaigns is a form a speech and the First Amendment does say, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." But in fact, the court didn't allow that. Corporations and unions still face bans on direct contributions to candidates--they are explicitly not free to spend as much as they want on political campaigns. Invariably, the media describes this specific ruling in the broadest terms, as if the Supreme Court unleashed some wild beast upon our defenseless democracy. After reading such relentlessly false descriptions of what the court actually said, it comes as no surprise that the public apparently opposes the "ruling"...
While the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did not lack for punditry to begin with, President Barack Obama's nearly unprecedented scolding of the court during his State of the Union address has pushed the Washington commentariat into overdrive. Instead of rehashing the president's (misleading at best) remarks, I think it's important that we take a step back and look at the fundamental issues behind this case.
Washington has a way of inducing selective amnesia in our elected representatives. Many states, including Illinois and Maryland, allow corporate contributions to state candidates. As an Illinois state senator, Obama accepted direct contributions from the corporate treasuries of Citigroup and London-based pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, among others. As a Maryland state legislator, Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, one of the more hysterical critics of the decision, accepted from business entities about 10 percent of his campaign funds during the four years leading up to his election to Congress.
If, as these detractors and their allies would have us believe, corporate money is by definition corrupting, why did they accept these funds when doing so benefited them? Note that the Citizens United ruling left intact the ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates, so contributions such as those Obama and Van Hollen took as state lawmakers remain illegal for federal office seekers.
David Bossie irritates President Obama. Bossie did not get the usual upturned chin or expletive-riddled call from Rahm Emanuel this week after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, his non-profit corporation, in a landmark free-speech decision. Rather, Obama decided to take a potshot through a sharp-edged rant tucked into the State of the Union.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
Bossie's take on Obama's finger-wagging was similar to what Justice Samuel Alito mouthed, and similar to the analysis Bradley A. Smith and Shannen Coffin have presented on the Corner: "Not true." Foreign corporations, Bossie says, are prohibited from making contributions in connection with American elections, and that wasn't even at issue in the case. The president's anger over the Court's 5-4 decision, he adds, actually reveals something more troubling: Obama doesn't like it when someone tries to snatch power from the federal government and put it back in the hands of the American people.
Bad arguments have been proliferating in the wake of this week's Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on political expenditures by corporations and unions. The opinion leaves in place limits on campaign donations, but frees up corporations and unions to spend as much as they like to disseminate political messages. Here is a rogue's gallery of the most common arguments I've heard against the holding, followed by brief explanations of their profound misguidedness.
1) This 5-4 decision is a blatant example of judicial activism, and conservatives are hypocritical for supporting it.
Judicial activism occurs when judges abandon constitutional or statutory meaning and impose their policy preferences instead. A decision that faithfully applies the First Amendment is not activism but rather ...
Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak."
Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.
In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled "Hillary The Movie."Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable "on-demand." In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office.
I was stunned by the government's decision. I believe that, above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered "our" government?
David Bossie, a veteran Republican campaign operative who made his mark investigating the Clintons, thought his group could offer a conservative answer to Michael Moore's successful films. After Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" premiered in 2004, Bossie's Citizens United group released "Celsius 41.11."
And after it became clear that Bossie's longtime enemy Hillary Rodham Clinton would run for president, Citizens United released another flick: "Hillary: The Movie." Featuring a who's-who cast of right-wing commentators, the 2008 film takes viewers on a savaging journey through Clinton's scandals. The sole compliment about the then-senator comes from conservative firebrand Ann Coulter: "Looks good in a pantsuit."
But "Hillary: The Movie" never became a blockbuster. The Federal Election Commission restricted Citizens United's ability to advertise the film during the 2008 primary season, a decision that Bossie and other conservative activists saw as a threat to their freedom of speech.
Jan. 21: David Bossie of Citizens United talks about the new ruling by the Supreme Court to allow corporations to spend money to support or oppose political candidates and will most likely allow labor unions to do the same.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.
The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.
The Supreme Court will hold a special public session on Thursday at 10 a.m., the Court announced at the close of this morning's oral arguments. Although no purpose for the sitting was specified, no arguments are scheduled, so it almost certainly will be to release opinions - perhaps the long-awaited ruling on campaign finance regulation. Such sessions are highly unusual, but so is the campaign finance case, involving a major constitutional controversy. Read more...
The U.S. Supreme Court has put off until next year a ruling that could remake the political landscape for the 2010 midterm elections, and that's making things tricky for those eagerly awaiting the decision, including political professionals, regulators, advocacy groups and even the White House.
The case in question, which was brought by the conservative non-profit group Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, challenges decades of law limiting corporate and union spending on elections. It could fundamentally reshape how money gets raised and spent, and spur a renewed effort to limit the flow of money into politics, which advocates for tougher restrictions predict will have President Barack Obama's backing.
This weekend, at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, a veritable who's who of conservative power-players and heavy-hitters converged to discuss, debate, relax and honor three their own. From Thursday, 11/19 to Sunday, 11/22 the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 'Restoration Weekend' drew together conservative politicians, pundits, authors, analysts and icons from around the nation.
Some of the speakers and guests that attended this gala event were: the host David Horowitz, former-Speaker of the House-Newt Gingrich, author-Ann Coulter, former-presidential candidate and US Senator-Fred Thompson, Phyllis Schlafly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, State Representative Adam Hasner, Pamela Geller-of Atlas Shrugs, House Minority Leader-John Boehner, Democratic Strategist-Pat Caddell, Scott Wheeler, Andrew Klavan, George Gilder, Jonah Goldberg, Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Steve Moore-of the Wall Street Journal, Andrew McCarthy, Bruce Bawer, Congressmen Ed Royce and Thaddeus McCotter, Major General Paul Vallely, Liz Cheney, Michael Ledeen, Dave Bossie and US Senator Jim DeMint.
There was a moving tribute video celebrating the late Ron Silver and then there was the great Citizens United Film Festival, which included 'Perfect Valor' and 'Ronald Reagan Rendezvous with Destiny'. The Freedom Center's 'Restoration Weekend' was a fantastic gathering of some of the best conservative minds in America. It was a pleasure having this group of exceptional Americans in our backyard.
David Bossie's Response to Senators McCain and Feingold's Remarks on CU v. FEC
"To accept Senators McCain and Feingold's remarks on the Senate floor yesterday at face value would require an objective listener to turn a blind eye to the facts at hand. Senator Feingold took an alarmist tone, warning that elections would somehow turn into corporate sponsored events like a NASCAR race. But that statement belies a willful ignorance of elections, such as the one about to take place in Virginia, in which corporate spending is legal and no allegations of any impropriety have been made.
"Senator McCain's umbrage at Justice Scalia's observation that Congress is self-interested, and that his comment in that regard is 'an affront to the thousands of good, decent, honorable men and women who have served this nation in these halls' similarly defies reason and logic. If a simple statement by a Justice of the Supreme Court can impugn the integrity of every man and woman who has served in Congress, what of a law that, at its essence, is a testament to Senators McCain and Feingold's apparent belief that Members of Congress lack the integrity to resist corporate influence?
"But most fundamentally, Congress is tasked with passing legislation and the Supreme Court's job is to determine whether or not those laws infringe on the fundamental rights delineated by the Constitution. The restrictions on free speech that Senators McCain and Feingold so passionately defended yesterday led the government to state in open court that the only thing standing in the way of banning commercially published books containing the phrase 'vote for X' was that the legislature had not yet passed such a law. Such a law cannot be far down the long and slippery slope that Senators McCain and Feingold so proudly grease under the guise of campaign finance reform legislation.
"It is my hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the dangers that lay ahead if we continue on our current path and put an end to the pattern of unconstitutional attempts by the legislature to erode our First Amendment rights as citizens of the United States."
29 years ago today, President Ronald Reagan signed his historic economic package into law. These tax and budget cuts set the stage for unprecedented economic growth in... Read More
Thankfully, the U.S. Senate killed the anti-1st Amendment DISCLOSE Act yesterday. President Obama and his Democrat-controlled Congress wasted six months trying to enact this... Read More
We all know that the liberal media loves Barack Obama in an unhealthy way. Since 2004, there has been a different standard when it comes to how large portions of the media... Read More
As President Obama prepares to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel today, Citizens United announced the launch of a national ad buy telling the President... Read More
“This bill, like many that have come before it, is a incumbent-protection power grab dressed up in the sheep’s clothing of ‘reform.’ The bureaucratic jungle that this bill... Read More
