Tuesday, July 07, 2009
In a move described by one newspaper as “pure legal overreach,” the U.S. Supreme Court decided last week to hear a case in September that could have monumental ramifications for the financing of national elections. Although Citizens United vs. FEC seemed to involve a challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, justices ordered attorneys for both sides to prepare briefs on a 20-year-old case that upheld restrictions on corporate contributions.
It is that case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which has campaign finance advocates and some newspapers jittery over what the justices may have in store for rules that limit how much companies, unions and other organizations can spend on campaigns. If the high court overturns Austin, corporations and unions would be free to spend whatever they want to elect or oppose candidates for office.
“If those restrictions are overturned, it would be a disaster for democracy,” wrote The New York Times in an editorial. “The most troubling part of the court’s action is the brave new world of politics it could usher in. Auto companies that receive multibillion-dollar bailouts could spend vast sums to re-elect the same officials who hand them the money. If Exxon Mobil or Wal-Mart wants something from a member of Congress, it could threaten to spend as much as it takes to defeat him or her in the next election.”
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Will Supreme Court Allow Unlimited Corporate Contributions to Election Campaigns? (by Daniel Tencer, Raw Story)
Pure Overreach (editorial, New York Times)
Comments