The Patriot's Flag

Today I’m flying the South Carolina Flag … a patriot flag I fly when politics are relatively quiet.  Today’s post is for people who are wondering what all the “noise” is about concerning the recent Supreme Court Decision on McCain-Feingold.  Here’s come background and commentary that will bring you up to speed.

Relatively Quiet

McCain-Feingold … What is it? The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.  This week, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that “guts” many of the key parts of McCain-Feingold … and of course there is a controversy!

CATO Institute Explanation of McCain-Feingold

Here is a 5 minute video that will give you most of the information you need on this subject:

The Reasoning for McCain-Feingold

The McCain-Feingold legislation was designed to discuss two issues:

1. Control of Soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting groups from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits.
2. Prohibiting political ads that named a federal candidate with 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election. and also prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds. (Wikipedia)

Previous Rulings:

Never mind that the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) said “As long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views.” The Supreme Court that had clearly warned Congress to stop toying with the First Amendment. (CATO)

The controversy

McCain-Feingold does nothing to reign in the huge sums of money extracted without consent from union members’ paychecks. Much of that money flows into union political action committees (PACs) that are not subject to any limits in two key areas. PACs are not bound by the limits on either independent expenditures.That’s OK, say McCain-Feingold supporters, because neither unions nor corporations are permitted to give to PACs, except to pay for administrative expenses. There was a difference between the treatment of corporate and union PACs. A corporate PAC may request voluntary contributions from executives and shareholders, but not from most other employees. Union PACs have greater flexibility because they can expropriate an involuntary part of their members’ dues for political purposes.  Advantage Unions! (CATO)

The law gave the government control over whether or not a statement was “political” and therefore subject to being banned.  This was in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States!

Also, under McCain-Feingold, the NEWS MEDIA was EXEMPTED (by the First Amendment).  Now people like the New York Times and Huffington Post will not have the “high perch” of the bully pulpit … they must share it with the rest of us! (TheNewAmerican)

The Lawsuit:

Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation set up to engage in conservative advocacy — an assemblage of people working for a political agenda. As people, they have the right to spend money to spread their opinions. But when they form a corporation for that purpose, some people think the same activities should be illegal. But Citizens United claimed the rule violated its free speech rights. And last week, the Supreme Court agreed. (TownHall)

Assent:: “The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union.” – Chief Justice John Roberts

Dissent: “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” – Justice John Paul Stevens, in the dissent.

The Fallout from the Decision:

By and large, Democrats were outraged at the decision and Republicans were pleased.  Although, there were a few interesting revelations.(Examiner). Most Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who fought the bill from the beginning, are celebrating.(Politico)

Feingold: (BigJournalism) The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

McCain, whose party leaders praised the court decision, wasn’t as tough as Feingold. “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions,” he said. (Politico)

Obama (WashPost) “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that martial their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.” – President Barack Obama.

Corporate Campaign Flooding? Critics fear that freed from constraints, giant corporations will burn vast sums to help or hurt politicians. In reality, most business people are not about to plunge into divisive election campaigns, for fear of antagonizing customers. If Starbucks comes out “for” or “against” Obama, they will risk losing 47% of  their customers,  (according to Gallop’s Presidential Approval Poll). Corporations won’t take that risk.

First Amendment Upheld: After looking at all the information, this seems to me a rather clear case for First Amendment rights.  The government was in a position, with McCain-Feingold, to control what they deemed was or was not political in nature. They could have banned books because such a book mentioned a candidates name and was read within 60 days of a federal election.  As I look back at the original decision, it is easy once again to see McCain leaning far to the left … and he “blew it” on this bill which is clearly a socialist, government-control tactic. The 5 minute video above explains the entire controversy best.

Corporate Funding, I doubt it. I doubt (having worked at the top-level of a corporation) that a CEO today is going to risk profit because s/he wants to promote one candidate over another.  If you look at the sales for GM and Chrysler … they are far down and Ford is up. My reasoning?  People don’t want to buy a car from GM or Chrysler knowing they are supporting unions … so, personally, I would buy a Ford.  But where does Ford stand politically?  You don’t know, and they are not about to take a position … and neither will any other corporation, especially retail.  I wouldn’t taste a Ben and Jerry’s ice cream cone if it was free, I would never spend money for a Danny Glover movie, I refuse to buy tires at Goodyear (gun-free zone), and I tore up my AARP card!  Little (perhaps silly) buying decisions on my part.  But I will not support, with my personal money, people or corporations who do not believe what I believe.  A savvy CEO knows this … and stays “mum” on politics.  So I doubt there will be huge contributions from corporations.

However: The only exception I could see would be CitiBank or Bank of America contributing a few dollars to Obama’s defeat in 2010 … keep picking on them and they just might react!   Obama has decided corporations are “the enemy” … he keeps up his attack on them, he might cause it to be true.  Would I buy from a corporation that was trying to ensure his defeat? 

You betcha’.

Will Corporations Strike Back?

1. Townhall.Chapman: Free Speech for Corporations
2. Wikipedia: BiPartyisan Campaign Reform Act
3. HotAir: Supreme court Strikes Down McCain-Feingold
4. NewAmerican: The Coming Small Biz revolution 01.25.10
5. ContraCostaTimes: Supreme Court Decision a Victory for Free Speech 01.25.10
6. YouTube: Americans Sign Petition to Repeal the First Amendment 01.25.10 (Amazing!)

Doug S.C. Flag - Relatively Calm