Litigation

Obama Expands Critique of ?Citizens United? Ruling

By Peter Hardin

President Barack Obama set his sights on the blockbuster Citizens United decision in his Saturday radio and Internet address.

The president decried it as a potent weapon for special interests, warned of “a potential corporate takeover of our elections,” according to a New York Times article, and  urged Congress to respond with bipartisan legislation.

The Supreme Court struck down prohibitions on corporate spending for elections and opened the door to unlimited election spending by special interests. The ruling deals “a huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence,” a Washington Post article quoted Obama as saying:

“In short, this decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money ? literally millions of dollars ? to affect elections throughout our country.  This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government.”

Democratic leaders recently introduced bills to soften the impact of Citizens United through new disclosure requirements (see Gavel Grab). Obama called for passage of bipartisan legislation “to prevent corporations and other special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington.” Only with enhanced disclosure can citizens track special-interest political influence, he said:

“We?ve all seen groups with benign-seeming names sponsoring television commercials that make accusations and assertions designed to influence the public debate and sway voters? minds.  Now, of course every organization has every right in this country to make their voices heard.  But the American people also have the right to know when some group like ‘Citizens for a Better Future’ is actually funded entirely by ‘Corporations for Weaker Oversight.’”

Obama concluded with some of his strongest language, warning, “[W]hat we are facing is no less than a potential corporate takeover of our elections.  And what is at stake is no less than the integrity of our democracy.”

In an editorial, the Christian Science Monitor said Democrats would benefit from help by Republicans to  pass legislation “as strong and impervious to a court battle as possible.”

In North Carolina, an Asheville Citizen-Times editorial suggested state legislators “fight back against the Citizens United ruling by pushing for more public financing, [and] stringent disclosure requirements…[I]t’s a fight we have to have.”

A Bloomberg commentary by Albert R. Hunt was headlined, “Sunlight is Still Best Disinfectant for Politics.”

When the high court issued Citizens United, Justice at Stake said the decision posed grave dangers to America?s elected state courts. You can read the JAS statement by clicking here, or click here to see the JAS amicus brief in the case; you can visit Gavel Grab to learn how legislators and other executive branch officials have responded.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 03, 2010 (boomark / email).