Citizens United Case Arguments To Be Heard Tomorrow

September 8, 2009

Court case could undermine 100-year-old ban on corporate money in elections; Coalition says public financing of elections is best available option

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in a case that could have dramatic impact on the financing of elections. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was first heard at the high court in March, but in a surprising and unorthodox move this summer, the Court asked for the case to be re-argued to consider a broader set of decisions regarding campaign finance law.

At issue in the case is whether corporate money can be used to directly advocate election or defeat of federal candidates. Citizens United, a nonprofit funded in part with corporate money, produced a film that attacked then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC ruled that its airing would violate federal law. In considering this case, the Court has asked whether key precedents regulating the use of corporate funds for electioneering should be overturned. Observers believe that a decision to overturn these precedents would lead to a greater role for corporate money in elections, leaving elected officials to have to spend more time raising money to be able to respond.

"The Robert's Court has been systematically chipping away at any law that places appropriate and common sense limits on corporate political power," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "Whether or not the Court sides with big money in this case, it is clear that public financing of elections would be our best option in making elections about voters instead of corporate donors. The Fair Elections Now Act will do just that."

"In the wake of watching the economy crash, in part because Congress was loathe to regulate some of its best donors, the thought of rolling back 100 years of modest limits on corporate giving is deeply troubling and would further drown out the voice of the public," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar.

"America does not trust its government. The enormous amount of private influence in D.C. has made it untrustworthy," Lawrence Lessig, founder of Change Congress and Harvard professor of law. "Citizen-funded elections would change that, and nothing in the Citizens United case will threaten the viability of this obvious solution to this overwhelming problem."

Lisa Gilbert, U.S.PIRG's Democracy Advocate added, "An additional influx of spending by wealthy corporations could raise the volume of corporate voices while decreasing the importance of new and small donors to candidates, and as a result, their enthusiasm to participate."

"Overturning the court's precedents on corporate election expenditures would be a disaster," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "Ours is a government of the people, by the people, for the people -- not the corporations and their money. Corporations don't vote, and they shouldn't be permitted to spend limitless amounts of money to influence election outcomes."

"Regulating corporate managers' use of shareholder funds to support or oppose a particular candidate is not comparable to silencing a political point of view, as some advocates are claiming," said Monica Youn, counsel in the Democracy Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. "Corporations have ample opportunities to advance their political agendas, but overturning commonsense safeguards would open the door to political corruption."

Specifically, the Court asked that the new legal briefs and oral arguments at the re-hearing include whether or not to overturn two previous landmark campaign finance cases, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. In essence, the Supreme Court took a limited challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and expanded it.

Introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826) would create a voluntary system of public financing that provides candidates with a limited sum of public funds once they demonstrate broad community support. Candidates are also able to raise additional funds in small amounts on top of the grant that are matched on a four to one basis, up to a limit, and are eligible to receive media vouchers for airtime. Because the system is voluntary and places no further restrictions on those who choose not to participate, the law is constitutional.

The coalition backing the measure include the Brennan Center for Justice, Change Congress, Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. A broad coalition of civic, online, advocacy, union, church, environmental, and civil rights groups have endorsed the campaign reform measure. For more information about the bill and the coalition, visit www.fairelectionsnow.org.

SOURCE Fair Elections Now Coalition