Paul Sherman [Staff attorney, Institute for Justice]: "March 24, 2009, was a defining moment in the history of the First Amendment. On that day, during oral argument in Citizens United v. FEC, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the members of the Supreme Court that, under the Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government had the power to ban political books. For the first time, the Supreme Court was faced with an advocate who candidly conceded the true extent of the damage campaign-finance laws have done to First Amendment rights. And in a tremendous vindication of those rights, five Justices said "enough is enough," reversed Austin, and struck down the federal prohibition on independent political advocacy by corporations and unions.
By overturning Austin and allowing corporations and unions to add their unique voices to the political debate, the Supreme Court has made it possible for voters to have access to more information about candidates than at any time in the last 60 years. It's hardly surprising, then, that incumbent politicians are worried, or that several members of Congress have already proposed various legislative work-arounds to limit or undo the decision. But incumbent politicians have no business telling voters what information they are allowed to hear before deciding whether to reelect those same politicians. The Supreme Court was correct to strike down their attempt to do so in Citizens United, and it should recognize any congressional attempts to undermine that ruling as the assault on First Amendment principles that they are.
Ultimately, the most remarkable thing about
Citizens United [PDF file] is not that five Justices voted to overturn
Austin and restore protection to political speech, but that the four dissenting Justices would have upheld
Austin and banned the distribution of a political documentary. That the issue was even a matter of debate shows just how far the Court's jurisprudence had drifted from the elegant simplicity of "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech." The five Justices of the majority simply took that constitutional command seriously, and they should be commended for it."
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
Commentary