Home > Blog
BLOG
Justice Thomas Comments on Ben Tillman, the Forgotten Founding Father of Campaign Finance Reform
Published on February 4, 2010
Earlier this week, Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking at Stetson Law School in Florida, defended the Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down the Tillman Act, banning corporate spending in political campaigns, on First Amendment grounds. Said Thomas:
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation. Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
That made us decide it might be a timely moment to recirculate our post from 2006 on "Ben Tillman, Forgotten Founding Father of Reform." Read about the despicable Tillman below the fold.
Smith on Citizens United in SCOTUSblog
Published on February 2, 2010 07:07 PM
SCOTUSblog invited CCP Chairman Brad Smith to comment on the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. His piece, "Citizens United, Shareholder Rights, and Free Speech: Restoring the Primacy of Politics to the First Amendment," is split into two parts.
Part I addresses the Court's jurisprudence in Citizens United, and responds to Professor Laurence Tribe's SCOTUSblog commentary critiquing the Court's ruling.
Part II details concerns about congressional regulations proposed after Citizens United on shareholder governance of corporate political expenditures and restrictions on domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies.
CCP witnesses engage Senators on campaign finance options
Published on February 2, 2010 04:32 PM
Center for Competitive Politics vice president Steve Hoersting and CCP board member Allison Hayward, a professor of law at George Mason University, testified Tuesday morning before the Senate Rules & Administration Committee.
A webcast of the hearing is available at the committee's website:
Hoersting focused his testimony on some of the policy options Congress could consider that are likely to pass constitutional muster, such as freeing the party committees and candidates from the remaining statutory burdens of McCain-Feingold. Doing so would shift more money from the unregulated independent groups into candidates and parties. Hoersting's prepared remarks are here.
CCP's Hoersting and Hayward to testify at post-Citizens United Senate hearing
Published on January 31, 2010
The U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration has posted the witness list for Tuesday's hearing on potential legislative responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) vice president Steve Hoersting and CCP board member Allison Hayward, a professor of law at George Mason University, will testify at the subtly-titled hearing, "Corporate America vs. The Voter: Examining the Supreme Court's Decision to Allow Unlimited Corporate Spending in Elections."
The hearing starts at 10 a.m. Tues., Feb. 2. A full witness list and any updates are available at the committee's website.
Hoersting on CNBC to discuss foreign corps. and Citizens United
Published on January 28, 2010 03:04 PM
Center for Competitive Politics Vice President Steve Hoersting will appear on CNBC's "Street Signs" for a 2:20 p.m. segment on the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and its meaning for foreign corporation political activity.
Josh Israel, a reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, will join Steve in a conversation with anchor Erin Burnett.
President Barack Obama mischaracterized the Court's holding in Citizens United in an uncomfortable moment of last night's State of the Union address. Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the majority opinion, said "not true," when Obama remarked that foreign corporations could "spend without limit in our elections."
For more background on this issue, read CCP's press statement on President Obama's comments.
SpeechNow.org v. FEC argument update
Published on January 27, 2010 03:32 PM
Lawyers for SpeechNow.org and the Federal Election Commission squared at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday morning, clashing over the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog has a comprehensive analysis:
... the D.C. Circuit Court appeared on Wednesday to be leaning strongly toward giving even more freedom to campaign groups that are set up to operate independently of candidates and parties. From the opening moment of the 65-minute hearing, most of the nine judges on the en banc Court treated the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as the beginning, not the end, of expansion of those freedoms. When an FEC lawyer tried to bring up, and rely on, older precedents, he was reminded repeatedly that those came before Citizens United.
O'Connor: Joe the Merit Committee Board Member
Published on January 27, 2010
A series of panel discussions at Georgetown University Law School Tuesday focused on the impact of the Supreme Court's recent rulings in Caperton and Citizens United on state courts.
View the conference webcast here.
The conference, co-sponsored by The Aspen Institute, prominently featured Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is leading an initiative to abolish judicial elections in favor of judicial appointments.
The second panel, "Citizens United and the Election of State Court Judges," moderated by National Law Journal's Tony Mauro, featured a lively debate with CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith, Jan Baran, Karl Sandstrom, H. Thomas Wells, Jr. and Fred Wertheimer.
Steve Hoersting explaining Citizens United v. FEC on C-SPAN
Published on January 26, 2010 05:00 PM
On Friday, Jan. 22, C-SPAN's Washington Journal featured CCP Vice President Steve Hoersting debating American University Prof. Jamin Raskin on the impact of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision on American politics. Highlights of the debate are below:
Smith on PRI's 'To the Point' Monday
Published on January 26, 2010
CCP Chairman Brad Smith appeared on Public Radio International's "To the Point" program Monday to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a panel of guests. The segment starts at about seven minutes into the show, available here.
McCain: Campaign finance 'reform' is dead
Published on January 25, 2010 07:08 AM
On the CBS program "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer, Sen. John McCain declared that campaign finance reform is dead after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, according to the CBS write-up:
Schieffer asked McCain if he thought the issue of campaign finance reform was "dead."
"Oh, I think so." He predicted a backlash would occur when people see the amounts of unfettered money, from corporations and unions, that will go into political campaigns.
"But in the short term, the Supreme Court has spoken. I respect their decision," he conceded.
Debunking the Citizens United Horror Stories: Episode 1: Foreign Corporations
Published on January 24, 2010 12:00 PM
Critics of the Jan. 21 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC are trotting out their horror stories with increasing shrillness. In the next few days, we will be making a series of posts with the straight dope.
Today's episode one discusses the biggest horror story of them all: Citizens United will allow foreign corporations — from China! From North Korea! to pour millions into our elections. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said so this morning on ABC, and the President himself has made the claim, "even foreign corporations may now get into the act."
Really? No, not really. Go below the fold to find out why...
Schumer's 'barely true' comments on Citizens United
Published on January 24, 2010 11:11 AM
PolitiFact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times, shredded a statement by Sen. Chuck Schumer (and implicitly all other "reformers" using similar demagoguery) that in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, "the (U.S. Supreme Court) decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures."
On its trusty "Truth-o-Meter" the site rated Schumer's comments "Barely True." Ouch.
Here's more:
Schumer said the Supreme Court "decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures." But he ignores the fact that the ban on direct donations from corporations to campaigns still exists. And the oldest law that specifically banned independent expenditures dated to 1947. You could also argue that we should be dating this from the 1970s campaign finance laws, or even the 1990 Austin case. So he's exaggerating the scope of the ruling and how long the laws have been on the books. We rate Schumer's statement Barely True.
Clinton on Citizens United v. FEC?
Published on January 24, 2010 07:01 AM
An excerpt from a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Jan. 21, the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down certain restrictions on political speech by corporations, unions and advocacy groups:
And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I'm confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.
We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship.
Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech.
The Shoddy Scholarship and Intellectual Ignorance of Ruth Marcus
Published on January 23, 2010 10:45 AM
In today's Washington Post, under the headline "The High Court's Shoddy Scholarship," Ruth Marcus accuses the Citizens United majority of, well, "shoddy scholarship," and also "stunning... intellectual dishonesty." I won't accuse Ms. Marcus of "intellectual dishonesty" herself, because I know Ms. Marcus a bit and don't think she is intellectually dishonest. But I do attribute her column to intellectual ignorance.
Let's look at her accusations, one by one, below the fold...
Chicken Little, Inc.
Published on January 23, 2010
A professional campaign of fear and loathing is in full effect post the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. While some controversy surrounds the Court because of its strong stance in protecting the First Amendment, a great whimpering of fear and emotional confusion surrounds what really happened.
For starters, Citizens United v. FEC is the election law equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education, not "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case," as Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida and MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann howled.
More CCP analysis of Citizens United
Published on January 22, 2010 04:59 PM
Here's a round-up of day two coverage of the historic Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Prof. Hayward on Citizens United v. FEC
Published on January 22, 2010 02:48 PM
George Mason University assistant professor of law Allison Hayward, also a CCP board member, provides analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United to D.C.'s FOX affiliate:
"What's happened here is that the court has revisited a problem that has been in campaign funding for a long time and has finally said clearly that there's no constitutional ability for congress to say that corporations — and, by extension, labor organizations — can't make independent expenditures in federal campaigns," Hayward explained.
The embedded video (5:33 long) is below the jump.
Hoersting on C-SPAN debating Citizens United
Published on January 22, 2010 10:35 AM
This morning, C-SPAN's Washington Journal featured CCP Vice President Steve Hoersting debating American University Prof. Jamin Raskin on the impact of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision on American politics.
Video of the exchange is below the jump...
Justice Stevens' Dissent: Lengthy, Passionate and at Odds with Reality
Published on January 22, 2010 09:47 AM
At 90 pages, Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United v. FEC is long. Which is not surprising — Stevens is saying "goodbye" by expressing his final word on an important legal issue. Stevens has been a consistent voice for deference to Congress. This is sincere on his part, given his background as a prosecutor bringing corrupt pols to justice in Illinois, for which he gained fame — and ultimately a federal judgeship.
CCP on CU
Published on January 21, 2010 04:52 PM
Today's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC transforms the political landscape by restoring First Amendment rights to businesses, unions and advocacy groups. It unequivocally means more speech in campaigns, and voters will have access to more diverse and robust information as a result.
The Center for Competitive Politics delved into the Court's opinion and explains what it all means for political speech rights going into the 2010-2012 election cycles...
CCP held a conference call this morning after the Court announced its ruling with a bipartisan group of campaign finance experts.
The transcript of the opening remarks of CCP Chairman Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman, and other commentators are here, which serves as CCP's press statement on this ruling. Full audio of CCP's call (approx. 50 minutes, 23 MB) will be available soon. Participants included top campaign finance litigator Jim Bopp, former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, former DNC general counsel Joe Sandler and longtime ACLU attorney Joel Gora.
