Alito: Obama’s court claim ‘not true’

I guess there’s a reason some Supreme Court justices never show up for a president’s State of the Union message.

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

Constructive approach. The Supreme Court did seem to go too far with its Citizens United ruling, but perhaps President Obama should have outlined a few specific steps that could be taken to guard political campaigns from excessive corporate influences. How about public financing of elections? Or something better?

In his speech, Obama said:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

President Nixon did not mention Roe v. Wade in his 1973 or 1974 State of the Union messages. How often does a president challenge the justices to their faces and expect them to sit like statues?

Frank Warner

Comments

[Neo]

To paraphrase one of Mr. Obama's own lines, Obama acted stupidly.
Starting at the end of page 46 (53 of the pdf)

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.

... clearly shows that Obama was wrong.
Perhaps this "Constitutional lawyer" should take the time to actually read the opinions before make a complete ass of himself, like he did in this case.

[Kevin]

"The Supreme Court did seem to go too far with its Citizens United ruling..."

Could you elaborate, Frank? Because it didn't seem that way to me at all. It seemed like the court went the exactly correct amount of farness in this decision.

I'm all for not allowing foreign corps the same privilege though. Was Obama right about that one? I'd not heard it before.

[CJW]

Obama was too busy getting "stuff" done to research this ruling.

[jj mollo]

I don't know about the etiquette, but I don't think he's wrong in his assessment of the consequences. Money is speech. That's true enough. But I expect the coming tidal wave of money to shout down the legitimate interests of the people. What kind of controls will pass Constitutional muster? Congress will not have the nerve to pass anything, now.

And foreign corporations already find ways to influence elections. All they have to do is buy a significant share of any American company, and the board of that company will heed their wishes. Tell me what corporation isn't foreign these days. They all look to their own interests and care not a fig for the country.

[Kevin]

The libertarians weigh in (video). He always makes sense.

That's a good point, jj. I wonder what could be done about foreign corporations. Probably nothing, since pretty much all corporations are at least partially owned by foreigners - even in the media. Hmm.

[jj mollo]

Re the video. Ending with the govt interferes with corporations. You should be aware that a lot of govt interference with corporations is really driven by big companies trying to suppress competition from small companies and startups. Big companies spend a lot of time in anti-competitive behavior. Raising the barriers to entry is one good strategy, and if Congress can help do that, so much the merrier.

[Frank Warner]

If we want to balancing some of our debt-laden books, perhaps we should allow foreign nations to contribute to our political campaigns. Let's take it all the way. They could be allowed to contribute, as long as each contribution meets a minimum of, say, $1 trillion.