"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.
It seems that documentary movies regarding the fiscal and financial crisis are on demand nowadays. One of the newest of these kinds of documentaries is the movie Generation Zero. Generation Zero-The Truth About the Financial Meltdown is a documentary produced by David N. Bossie and directed by Steve K. Bannon that examines the causes of the economic collapse of September 18, 2008. The film surmises that the Greatest Generation, in their effort to shelter their children from the horrors of The Great Depression and World War II overly nurtured them, causing an outlook of selfishness.
Generation Zero novie documentary alleges that the financial crisis of 2008 happened as a result of this selfishness coming from the generation that would become the hippies of the 1960s who would eventually come to power and promote their outlook upon the financial markets by taking reckless risks because they believed there could be no downside to their decisions. The documentary interviews many influential voices in fiscal conservative circles such as Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich and Tobin Smith. The film made its debut at the Tea Party Convention and was shown shortly after at the 2010 CPAC event.
"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"...
A controversial new documentary film, "Generation Zero" which provides a unique perspective on the causes of the recent financial meltdown and the economic debacle it triggered, will be premiering in a special screening at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville today.
Andrew Breitbart will provide introductory remarks concerning the film. Breitbart will also be introducing keynote speaker, Gov. Sarah Palin the following evening.
Featuring more than 40 leading experts, authors, and pundits from across the political spectrum, "Generation Zero" exposes how the mindset of the "Greatest Generation" — to not let their children suffer through the same economic hardships that they did during the Great Depression and WWII — led to the "Me Generation" and ultimately the Clinton/Bush era of trading campaign contributions for government "cover" in the form of guaranteed bailouts of Wall Street's speculative investments, thus sowing the seeds of economic disaster that would be reaped by coming generations.
In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance decision. And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court's decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
The recent Supreme Court decision overturning some limits on campaign spending represents a major victory for the First Amendment, says Citizens United President David Bossie. Citizens United, which had been barred from advertising a documentary about Hillary Clinton, was the victor in the case, decided last month.
"This is a major victory for all Americans who believe in free speech," Bossie told Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella. "We took on this task, … because we felt strongly that we must stand up for free speech. We felt we must stop our slide down the slippery slope of criminalizing political speech, which is what Congress did."
During his State of the Union address last week, President Barack Obama attacked the Supreme Court — with the justices sitting right in front of him — for its decision that will allow American corporations and labor unions to speak during election season. Whether or not the criticism was appropriate, it should at least have been correct. Unfortunately, this time he was flat wrong.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA, bans election-related expenditures and communications by American corporations. Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to produce and advertise a movie critical of a 2008 presidential candidate and sued to argue that BCRA's speech restrictions violated the First Amendment. On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court agreed. "If the First Amendment has any force," the court said, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
That is what the case was about. Here is what it was not about: This case had nothing to do with contributions by anyone to political campaigns. The ban on such contributions by corporations, originally enacted in 1907 as the Tillman Act, remains untouched. This case had nothing to do with campaign-related spending of any kind by foreign individuals or corporations. The ban on such spending is similarly still in place.
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.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to free up corporate political spending, First Amendment advocates have scoffed at the notion that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will drastically redefine elections.
Like Justice Samuel Alito during President Obama's State of the Union address, free speech defenders have collectively shaken their heads and denied that much will change. Predictions of massive corporate spending and political deregulation are just so much hysteria and hyperbole, the ruling's champions suggest.
But another landmark legal challenge, argued before a federal appeals court just eight days after the Citizens United ruling, suggests that election laws will, indeed, never be the same. During oral arguments in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, several D.C. Circuit court judges sharply questioned existing limits on political action committees, citing Citizens United as an argument for deregulation.
WSJ - The Media and Corporate Free Speech by James Taranto - 01/30/10
President Obama says the Supreme Court made a big mistake. The pre-eminent First Amendment expert disagrees.
I met Floyd Abrams the other evening at the midtown Manhattan headquarters of a multibillion-dollar corporation that a few days earlier had exercised its First Amendment rights to argue that corporations do not have First Amendment rights. I came to the New York Times Co. building not to look in on the competition, but to see the celebrated First Amendment lawyer speak on a panel about press freedom.
Mr. Abrams has represented the New York Times Co. from time to time, most notably in the landmark Pentagon Papers case of 1971. But he and his erstwhile client took opposite sides in the decision we had gotten together to discuss. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which the court decided last week in a 5-4 decision, invalidated federal laws that made certain political speech a crime.
Although Citizens United wasn't Mr. Abrams's case, "I took a special pleasure . . . in this ruling," he tells me over drinks following the panel. That's because it overturned a 2003 decision in a case he lost, McConnell v. FEC, in which a 5-4 majority upheld provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, including one that criminalized corporate funding of "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Seven years later, with Justice Samuel Alito in the majority, the court reversed that holding.
In the case of Barack Obama v. Supreme Court of the United States, that was some oral argument on Wednesday night. With the Justices arrayed a few feet in front of him in the House chamber, President Obama blistered their recent decision defending free political speech for corporations and unions. As Democrats in Congress and Cabinet members rose and applauded around them, the Justices sat stern-faced, save for Samuel Alito, who was seen shaking his head and mouthing the words "Not true."
Bravo, Justice Alito.
We're not among those who think the Supreme Court is above criticism. Especially in recent decades as the judiciary has become more political, and has encroached on the powers of Congress and the executive, politicians in the other branches have an obligation to defend their powers. Mr. Obama may have exhibited bad manners in sandbagging the Justices without warning on national TV, but he has every right to disagree with their rulings.
The sober, sprawling State of the Union address that President Obama delivered last week was marked by one extraordinary moment. It came when the president looked down at six robed members of the Supreme Court, seated directly in front of him, and criticized their recent 5 to 4 decision that he said "will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
While Democrats stood applauding his call on Congress to pass legislation narrowing the impact of the ruling, the TV cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito, one of the two George W. Bush appointees who made the reversal of precedent possible, apparently mouthing the words "Not true."
Such direct confrontations between the branches of the federal government are almost unprecedented, and they set the stage for what ought to be a serious debate. The day after, much of the discussion was focused narrowly on the question of whether Obama was correct in saying that foreign corporations would be unleashed on American elections by the justices' decision.
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.
Conservative legal groups said it was the president who was wrong.
"The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics -- scapegoating 'special interest' bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy," said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC member and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.
The group that started the lawsuit, Citizens United, also weighed in.
"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.
But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."
In just seven years, the Supreme Court has declared most of the fabled McCain-Feingold law unconstitutional. The court has struck down the law's bans on contributions by minors, on independent spending by political parties and on issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, as well as restrictions on "millionaire" candidates. With last week's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court has now declared that corporations and unions may spend money on political advertising that urges the election or defeat of a candidate for public office.
The reaction was swift and intense. Conservatives and libertarians praised the ruling's preservation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Liberals and reformers expressed horror. President Obama predicted a "stampede of special-interest money in our politics" and declared, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest." (Disclosure: I filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Citizens United.)
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?
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.
Freedom is awaking from its coma today because of a huge, huge, huge Supreme Court decision -- huge. I cannot tell you how big this is. It's a 5-4 decision. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy. And what it does, it removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidate's campaigns. Meaning corporations and not-for-profits can spend any amount of money they want running ads and there's no limit as to when those ads can be run.
This turns over 100 years of precedent. You know how anti-corporatist the left is; you know how they hate corporations. This, folks, is causing ulcers. I can't tell you what this decision is doing today to these leftists who just a year ago, they had such high hopes that they're going to have every CEO in jail and every soldier in jail and it's just in one year, because the people of this country are not socialists. The people of this country still have roots to freedom and entrepreneurism and liberty, and nothing -- the left, Obama -- nothing can snuff that out.
The Supreme Court decision is a defeat. I'll tell you, it's a defeat, ladies and gentlemen, for the fascists, the statists who seek to control our property, our bodies, and our speech. It is a defeat for Senator McCain. The muzzle is off the American people now because they, in fact, can spend the money on advocacy ads prior to the general and primary elections. It is a 100-year-old precedent that has been overturned. It is solid in that respect.
Citizens United produced an advocacy commercial about Hillary Clinton, which they wanted to run before the primaries. The question was whether it violated McCain-Feingold's ban as some kind of a political commercial. The Supreme Court said such advocacy by Citizens United and other groups is protected constitutional speech, but the opinion addresses more than that. The court says, "The law provides an outright ban backed by criminal and civil sanctions, including nonprofit corporations to either expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary, 60 days of a general election." These would be felonies and the court struck these down. The court struck down all the limits on where you can advertise, when you can advertise, and how much you can spend on this advertisement.
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.
Bossie's legal team, led by Ted Olson, saw little difference between "Hillary, the Movie," and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," the documentary critical of George W. Bush that ran in the months before the 2004 presidential campaign.
But in 2005, federal election officials, acting on a challenge from Bossie himself, said that Moore's movie was different in that it was not expressly advocating for the defeat of Bush in the election, and ruled that it fell within the exemption for "commercial transactions." In other words, "Fahrenheit" was made for the purpose of selling tickets to see it, not to influence a campaign.
While journalists and media outlets also are exempt from restrictions, Bossie's challenge got the support from a number of reporters organizations and First Amendment advocates.
WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business.
But David Bossie, the conservative activist who brought the case to defend his campaign-season promotion of the documentary "Hillary: The Movie," said he was looking forward to rolling out his next film in time for the midterm elections.
Titled "Generation Zero," the movie features the television host Lou Dobbs and lays much of the blame for the recent financial collapse on the Democrats.
"Now we have a free hand to let people know it exists," Mr. Bossie said.
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
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.
Possibly coming soon to your TV screen: election-season Super Bowl-style ads promoting congressional and presidential candidates, paid for by some of the nation's largest corporations.
It may happen. For decades, business and union money has been largely shut out of state, congressional and presidential campaigns. The Supreme Court may change that in a big way.
The court has raised a range of high-stakes possibilities that could let corporations, unions and wealthy individuals pour money into elections in time for this year's congressional races, not to mention the 2012 presidential contest. A ruling is expected as early as Tuesday.
Corporations are pitching a bizarre product -- a radical vision of the 1st Amendment. It would give corporations rather than voters a central role in our electoral process by treating corporate political spending as protected speech. If this vision becomes reality, businesses and other big-money players will spend billions either hyping their preferred candidates or running attack ads against elected officials who don't support their preferred agenda. Voters will be forced into a couch-potato role, mere viewers of the electoral spectacle bought and paid for by wealthy companies.
The Supreme Court's decision in the hotly anticipated campaign finance reform case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission -- which may be announced as early as Tuesday -- will show whether a majority of the Roberts court is buying their argument.
WASHINGTON — Even before a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law expected within days, a series of other court decisions is reshaping the political battlefield by freeing corporations, unions and other interest groups from many of the restrictions on their advertising about issues and candidates.
Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate. The end of decades-old restrictions could unleash a torrent of negative advertisements, help cash-poor Republicans in a pivotal year and push President Obama to bring in more money for his party.
If the Supreme Court, as widely expected, rules against core elements of the existing limits, Democrats say they will try to enact new laws to reinstate the restrictions in time for the midterm elections in November. And advocates of stricter campaign finance laws say they hope the developments will prod the president to fulfill a campaign promise to update the presidential campaign financing system, even though it would diminish his edge as incumbent.
There was some irony in Stevens' anecdote, told as all the current justices sat in the court's Great Hall looking at the bust. They have another fast-track case before them, involving a less momentous yet still closely watched dispute, over campaign-finance regulation. Some hitch has emerged in the dispute that the justices heard in a special sitting in September and that could change governments' ability to regulate corporate and labor union spending in political races.
The court recently left for a month-long winter recess — without a decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That confounded legal analysts, including law professor Richard Hasen, who had predicted in the fall that the court would get the case done before 2010 to clarify constitutional rules at the beginning of the upcoming congressional election cycle.
"Why the delay?" asks Hasen, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "It's become like a parlor game."
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court entered its holiday intermission with the starkest drama put off until the second act.
When justices return on Jan. 11 for their next oral arguments, they'll barely have scratched the surface of the 2009 term. They've issued only four decisions so far, none dealing with the cases for which the term is likely to be remembered.
With more than 50 scheduled cases yet to be heard or decided, and other cases still to be added, some of these pending questions are pretty fundamental.
Does the government violate the First Amendment when it bans corporations from spending their own money on political campaigns? Do cities and states violate the Second Amendment when they ban gun possession?
The Supreme Court closed up shop for the year on Monday without ruling in a major campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
After the court heard a second argument in the case at a special summer in September, many election-law specialists expected a prompt decision based on the law at issue and the court's own practices.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, part of which is at risk in the case, requires the court "to expedite to the greatest possible extent" challenges to the law. In 2003, the court managed to decide a much more complicated case under the law, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. That case was also argued in September; it was decided by early December.
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.
It was thought to be coming today, a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, a case that could have a huge impact on how campaigns are financed.
During the 2008 presidential election, Citizens United, a conservative group, aired a feature-length TV movie critical of then-candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The FEC barred the pay-for-view movie from the airwaves because it was financed with corporate campaign funds. The court is weighing whether that was the right call, or whether corporations can now fund independent political messages. It even broadened the question to look at whether the court should overrule prior cases that upheld restrictions on independent corporate or union expenditures.
Montana voters, fed up with the grip of out-of-state mining interests on local politicians, passed an initiative in 1912 banning corporate spending on candidates for state office. As soon as Tuesday, that law -- and similar ones in nearly half the states -- could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for infringing corporations' free-speech rights.
None of those state laws specifically were at issue when the court agreed to hear Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which challenged provisions of the federal McCain-Feingold Act. The 2002 law built on a longstanding ban on direct corporate giving to House, Senate and presidential candidates by reining in so-called issue advertisements, such as television spots a corporation takes out on its own to help a particular politician's election or defeat.
Under the law, corporations and unions may not use general funds for such advertisements within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Instead, they must channel their electioneering through political action committees that solicit contributions from executives, employees, shareholders and other affiliates of the corporation.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law's apparent threat to free speech has one conservative political action committee taking its case to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get it tossed out.
David Bossie, whose group Citizens United found itself hauled into federal court by the Federal Election Commission over the content of its film "Hillary: The Movie," told Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella the legislation has been used in ways its chief sponsors never dreamed of.
"It affects all of our films, how we are able to advertise and how we are able to educate the American people about our film," Bossie said. "It is a ridiculous thing in my opinion that is part of the law of unintended consequences, because I don't believe for one minute that many U.S senators and congressmen, when they voted on McCain-Feingold, thought to themselves, 'Ah, filmmaking will be affected by this law.'"
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.
With an important Supreme Court campaign finance decision looming, sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 rejoined on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to warn the judicial branch not to strip away corporate restrictions on political activity.
"I certainly hope the court steps back from the brink," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). "Our elections would become like NASCAR races — underwritten by companies." He continued: "Only in this case, the corporate underwriters wouldn't just be seeking publicity, they would be seeking laws and policies that the candidates have the power to provide."
In the reargument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, several Supreme Court justices made note of the contested history of the corporate and labor expenditure ban. In part they drew from my work in this area, which shows that the cited history on which modern campaign finance restrictions generally rest is misleading in important ways.
Counsel for the intervenors, Seth Waxman, contended at that argument that there was little question that bench and bar always understood the expenditure ban (and the preceding ban on corporate expenditure) was constitutional.
My research contradicts Waxman's point. In addition to material already available in this context, I recently reviewed the archives of an interesting — but long-forgotten — series of prosecutions of corporations for making political contributions. In those materials, I found clear indication that notwithstanding political enthusiasm for the prosecution, both U.S. attorneys involved had doubts about the constitutionality of their position.
The start of the U.S. Supreme Court's fall term is always a much-anticipated event. This year, it is likely to receive more attention than usual, with a new justice being seated and conjecture that another plans to resign.
David H. Souter is no longer on the court, and this will be the first term for his replacement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It may be the last term for Justice John Paul Stevens, liberal icon of the court. The growing speculation that Stevens plans to retire next year was fueled by his recent decision not to select a full complement of clerks for 2010 -- a strong signal that he doesn't intend to remain on the bench.
For the most part, however, all eyes will be on Sotomayor. Most of the court handicappers will be watching for early signs of how she might depart from the liberal voting record of her predecessor. Originally a Republican nominee to the trial court (though later put on the appellate court by President Clinton), Sotomayor was suggested as a nominee for President George W. Bush and has a more conservative voting record than Souter. If she votes the way she voted on the appellate court, liberals will lose ground with her selection.
