The Supreme Court decided this week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [pdf] that the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform act represents an unconstitutional restriction on the 1st Amendment rights of corporations. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy, joined by Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.
Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas all delivered concurring opinions brimming with passion on the matter. One pressing issue was the validity of the Court’s prior decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The Court chose to overturn Austin, opening a lively internal debate on the scope and limits of stare decisis:
At the same time, stare decisis is neither an “inexorable command,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003), nor “a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision,” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940), especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978). If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants. Roberts’ concurrence, p. 6
McDonald v. Chicago asks that very question in regards to Slaughterhouse, and it’s encouraging to know that at least five Justices are willing to question blind adherence to precedent. Things have obviously changed since the Rehnquist Court.
The President made a very unfortunate statement in response to this, saying he was going to “get to work immediately with Congress” to come up with a “forceful response.”
That one sounds very familiar. Is it 1937 all over again?
What this will do is change the balance of power towards the middle. Traditionally, corporations have only gone to the trouble of forming and funding PAC’s when focused on specific, highly partisan issues. As such, candidates from the far right or far left have benefited.
Now that it’s easier for groups of citizens to band together without forming PAC’s, we’re likely to see a groundswell of support for moderate republicans and conservative democrats. It also gives the NRA, GOA, SAF and other 2A advocacy groups more latitude.
Of course, the mainstream media is screaming “judicial activism” over the whole thing. They do that when they don’t get their way. I don’t see how they can justify getting their knickers in a knot over this, since they’re usually big supporters of the 1st Amendment.
2 thoughts on “Questioning Precedent”
Don’t forget that big media is complaining about losing their preferential treatment in all of this. It’s a huge missing asterisk in most all of the reporting.
-Gene
Well, they think they’re special, even as their grasp slips in that arena.
The President’s lament that this is “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests” is quite telling, considering that big oil, Wall Street and health insurance companies were his three primary scapegoats in the first year of his administration.
I guess he’ll have to go back to blaming George W. Bush for everything.