Advertisement

Disposing of a threat to democracy

September 21, 2012|By Adam Schiff

Three months ago, in a decision all but lost in the tumult over the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the justices overturned a century-old Montana law that prohibited corporate spending in that state's elections.

In the Montana case, the Supreme Court had the chance to revisit its deeply flawed 2010 decision in Citizens United. But despite the urgings of members of the court itself and a public shell-shocked by the recent torrent of unregulated corporate expenditures, the court chose instead to double down and reaffirm the conclusion of Citizens United that corporations are people, at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

As a legal decision, the Citizens United opinion was remarkable in many ways — in its willingness to overturn a century of jurisprudence, in its choice to issue as broad a ruling as possible, rather than as narrow as the case and Constitution required, and in its reliance on minority or concurring views in prior decisions, rather than the prevailing opinions in those same cases.

Advertisement

But what stood out most about Citizens United was not the court's legal reasoning, but its staggering naiveté. As the court confidently declared, “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Well, glad that's settled. Unfortunately, the five justices who joined this opinion must be the last five Americans to feel that way. Certainly none of the evidence before the court in Citizens United or the Montana case compelled a conclusion so at odds with reality.

With the November presidential election fast approaching, corporate expenditures are now in the billions of dollars, and the “independence” of those expenditures — their theoretical separation from the office holders they are intended to influence — is a fiction no one buys. The proliferation of super PACs and their outsized influence on House, Senate and presidential politics is beyond dispute by all except those five Americans who happen to sit on the court.

But if the Montana case makes anything clear, it is that this court has dug in — no amount of unrestrained spending, no appearance of impropriety or actual corruption of our system is likely to dislodge this newly entrenched precedent from the threat it poses to our democracy. Regrettably, a constitutional amendment is required for that.

Glendale News-Press Articles Glendale News-Press Articles
|
|
|