Litigation

?Citizens United:? Justice at Stake Statement

By Peter Hardin

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision Thursday in an important campaign finance regulation case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

According to the Associated Press, the court 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.” Gavel Grab will report further on the decision and its expected impact during the day.

Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenburg made this statement:

“This ruling pours gasoline on the fire of special-interest money that has been overtaking judicial elections.  Interest group spending imperils our right to impartial justice by pressuring judges to rule with one eye on big-money contributors.

“The critical impact on elected state courts is captured eloquently in Justice Stevens? dissenting opinion:

‘[T]he consequences of today?s holding will not be limited to the legislative or executive context. The majority of the States select their judges through popular elections. At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch, see, e.g., O?Connor, Justice for Sale, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 15, 2007, p. A25; Brief for Justice at Stake et al. as Amici Curiae 2, the Court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in these races. Perhaps ?Caperton motions? will catch some of the worst abuses. This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering even if they believe such limits to be critical to maintaining the integrity of their judicial systems.’

“Today?s ruling does contain one important silver lining: states can and should require all who ?pay to play? in court elections to fully disclose their financial sources. Where there is public support, states may also need to consider public financing or the appointment of judges, as the best remaining way to protect courts from campaign cash.”

To see Justice at Stake?s amicus brief in Citizens United, click here. To see a Citizens United fact sheet, click here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 21, 2010 (boomark / email).