Nary a peep of protest
The Supreme Court gives corporations the biggest megaphone
Nary a peep of protest
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Remember how conservatives always complain about "unelected judges" who "legislate from the bench" and "make the law?" Remember how they always insist that judges should respect judicial precedents, bow to the wisdom of our elected legislative bodies, and respect the literal wording of the Constitution? Remember how they restated their convictions last summer while trying to tag Sonia Sotomayor as an "activist judge?"
Well, there was an historic development at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday: Five Republican appointees, constituting a narrow majority, decreed that the political playing field shall henceforth be tilted in favor of the special interests with the deepest pockets - namely, the corporations of America, which, until yesterday's ruling, had been barred by law from pumping their money directly into election campaigns ever since 1907.
These five Republican appointees reached their decision by simply sweeping away a century of congressional laws and decades of high court rulings. In short, they disrespected judicial precedent, thumbed their noses at our elected representatives, and ignored the literal wording of the Constitution - which speaks only of "we the people" and says nothing about the rights of corporations.
And yet there has been nary a peep of protest from conservatives about yesterday's "activist" behavior.
Starting with the '07 law signed by Theodore Roosevelt, congressmen and presidents had deemed it essential that corporations not be permitted to run wild with their money in federal campaigns, lest their inevitably huge megaphones drown out everybody else. A string of Supreme Court rulings have upheld such laws, some as recently as 1990 and 2003. And even way back in 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that corporations don't have the same rights as people; in his words, a corporation is "an artificial being, invisible, intangible. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence."
So there it was: the ban on corporate campaign donations has long been settled law; indeed, as recently as six years ago, the high court specifically ruled that the ban "has been firmly embedded in our law." Yet now we have John Roberts and his four GOP cohorts sweeping it all away, behaving as "activist judges."
(Corporations have long been putting money into elections via various indirect routes, such as trade associations and political action committees. But this ruling takes off the handcuffs, allowing them to dip directly into their general treasuries. The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend directly, but we all know that corporations have a lot more to spend than labor does. To get a rough idea, here's a stat: During the last election cycle, the Fortune 100 companies alone reportedly posted combined revenues of $13 trillion.)
Anyway, care to tally up the number of conservatives and Republicans who, over the past 24 hours, have assailed the Roberts majority for making law from the bench? As far as I can tell, zip.
If they are really true to their professed convictions, if they have any desire to be intellectually consistent, they would point out what Roberts himself said back in 2005, during his confirmation hearings: "I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in prompting stability and evenhandedness...It is not enough that you may think that the prior decision was wrongly decided." Roberts even paraphrased a line from Founding Father Alexander Hamilton: "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents."
Yet now Roberts has deemed himself unbound - functioning more as the judicial arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which naturally applauded the ruling) - and conservatives who routinely inveigh against "activist judges" have conveniently fallen mute. It's obvious why. They're just fine with "judicial activism" as long as it yields the kind of ruling they like. And a ruling that unleashes corporate cash tickles their free-market fancy. All that matters is the end result; how a ruling was reached is irrelevant. Unless a ruling strikes them as liberal. Then it's "judicial activism."
I think the word for all this is hypocrisy.
-------
The Massachusetts Senate election has roiled the political waters. I talked about that story earlier today on Philadelphia National Public Radio. A columnist from The Boston Globe joined in by phone. The hour-long show is archived here.
Still Independent- the case does not alter the current ban in federal law, and the laws of just under half the states, that prohibit corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates. All this means is that they can spend money to speak directly to voters. What precendent was ignored? The 1907 law remains in effect. Why is it OK for moveon.org to do a thousand adds but not Walmart?
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Freedom isn't free! It costs cash money.— puttinonthefoil
- Comment removed.
- It seems Mr. Polman and his Democrat friends are gnashing their teeth because they have lost their advantage. Prior to this ruling, the Dems had the edge in campaign donations. In the case of a large corporation, the union employees of that corporation were free to donate to Democrats, as "highly suggested" by their shop stewards and union leaders. The company itself was prohibited from contributing. The Democrats are now afraid that large businesses that are traditionally more attuned to pro-business Republicans are going to tip the balance of power here. Don't believe me? Here's a list of the top industries contributing to members of the 111th Congress during the 2009-2010 election cycle. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010— Phil105
- Also, one can look at the top Dem contributor (Lawyers and law firms) and understand why tort reform was NOT being included in any version of the health care reform bills.— Phil105
- Listening to Dick and fellow Columnist Joan Venocchi of the boston Globe putting their elitist left wing democrat spin on the Scott Brown election on fair and balanced WHYY's Marty Moss Coane's show. 2 lefty pros who had no clue about what is going on are still not getting it. If they represent the democratic party, of which they certainly represent a loud segment of, I am now convinced that the Democrats will be wiped out in the mid terms if they follow the liberal conventional wisdom as espoused by Dick Polman.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Gee Dick you fail to mentino that LABOR UNIONS spent $400 MILLION DOLLARS on the elections in 2008. How much did Walmart spend? The Labor Unions feed off of tax dollars and own politicians who give them special favors. They are the most corrupting force in politics, ever.— Grill
- swedesoboromike: as to the 1907 ban, it remain in place - for now. That would have been to far of a stretch even for the Supreme Court to overturn in this case. However, as I wrote earlier, the majority opinion (especially Scalia) stated that the constitution does not specify that only individuals have a right to free speech, so of course corporations do. If that is the case, and under the constitution individuals can give directly to campaigns, how long until someone challeneges the 1907 law? On the SCOTUS blog, they even point out that now a corporation may now have the right under the 14th ammendment to sue for the right to vote.— still_independent
- Left or right doesn't matter. Corporations are not eligible for free speech because they Bill of Rights are the rights of people. I don't understand the Soros issue because he is an individual. Everything I read on the law said corporations can now make direct contributions. It seems too risky for the people of the U.S. to allow any corporation to pump as much money as they'd like into a particular candidate's campaign. If you actually believe corporations are going to give more to Democrats than Republicans, you have no sense. Claiming that truth is a myth is a typical conservative ploy.— HandNik
- Phil105 : gee, in 2009-2010 those industries donated more money to the party that controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency? shocking. Go get the stat for 2004, and tell me what you see. Money ALWAYS flows to the party in power. And for those that don't understand, unions were under the same restrictions as corporations.— still_independent
- IMHO, congress should lift all the bans. What they can and should do, however, is impose VERY stringent and timely reporting laws. I don't care if Walmart gives $100M to Palin when she runs. I do care that I know about it, though.— still_independent
- This has nothing to do with what has gone on in recent years. This changes everything. This allows corporation to buy politicains and bribe them with enourmous sums of money. The amount of money that is spent on influencing the outcome of elections is going to skyrocket. Let's get this straight: The Republican Party believes that dramatically increasing the amount of money spent influencing an election is best for the country as a whole. That's essentially what they are saying. Bush appointed, and Republicans approved, two Justices that had a track record of being pro-big business. This is the result that they hoped for. You see, politics today have nothing to do with doing what's best for the country. It has to do with politicians getting re-elected for no other purpose than their own personal gain. That applies to both parties. This ruling is a disaster for this country.— MikeP
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
