negative impact on elections and may extend well beyond just "free speech" guarantees to all those enumerated in the Constitution. Fortunately, the disclosure requirements were upheld with only the most brain-dead justice dissenting--->
Campaign disclosure rules upheld
Lyle Denniston | Thursday, January 21st, 2010 10:35 am
The Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements:
* Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad's preparation or distribution.
*
Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.
Statements from Feingold and McCain --->
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.):
It is important to note that the decision does not affect McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process. But this decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. 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.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):
I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions. However, it appears that key aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including the ban on soft money contributions, remain intact.
Reactions to the Supreme Court reversing limits on corporate spending in political campaigns
Updated 1:25 p.m.
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. Read the Citizens United opinion (pdf).
by
gatekeeper50 on
01/21/2010 02:28:58 PM EST
[
Parent ]
