Limit on corporate campaign contributions lifted.

[Cretaceous Bob]

I cherry-picked some notable bits from Stevens's dissenting opinion:

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings,and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens

In fairness, our campaign finance jurisprudence has never attended very closely to the views of the Framers, see Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U. S. 230, 280 (2006) (STEVENS, J., dissenting), whose political universe differed profoundly from that of today. We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment, and many legal scholars have long since rejected the concession theory of the corporation. But “historical context is usually relevant,” ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted), and in light of the Court’s effort to cast itself as guardian of ancient values, it pays to remember that nothing in our constitutional history dictates today’s outcome. To the contrary, this history helps illuminate just how extraordinarily dissonant the decision is.

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens

Our colleagues ridicule the idea of regulating expenditures based on“nothing more” than a fear that corporations have a special “ability to persuade,” ante, at 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.), as if corporations were our society’s ablest debaters and viewpoint-neutral laws such as §203 were created to suppress their best arguments. In their haste to knock down yet another straw man, our colleagues simply ignore the fundamental concerns of the Austin Court and the legislatures that have passed laws like §203: to safeguard the integrity, competitiveness, and democratic responsiveness of the electoral process. All of the majority’s theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, “that there is no such thing as too much speech,” Austin, 494 U.S., at 695 (SCALIA, J., dissenting)).74 If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority’s premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener’s exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens’ willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process.

None of this is to suggest that corporations can or should be denied an opportunity to participate in election campaigns or in any other public forum (much less that a work of art such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be banned), or to deny that some corporate speech may contribute significantly to public debate. What it shows, however, is that Austin’s “concern about corporate domination of the political process,” 494 U. S., at 659, reflects more than a concern to protect governmental interests outside of the First Amendment. It also reflects a concern to facilitate First Amendment values by preserving some breathing room around the electoral “marketplace” of ideas, ante, at 19, 34, 38, 52, 54, the marketplace in which the actual people of this Nation determine how they will govern themselves. The majority seems oblivious to the simple truth that laws such as §203 do not merely pit the anticorruption interest against the First Amendment, but also pit competing First Amendment values against each other. There are, to be sure, serious concerns with any effort to balance the First Amendment rights of speakers against the First Amendment rights of listeners. But when the speakers in question are not real people and when the appeal to “First Amendment principles” depends almost entirely on the listeners’ perspective, ante, at 1, 48, it becomes necessary to consider how listeners will actually be affected.

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens

It would be perfectly understandable if our colleagues feared that a campaign finance regulation such as §203 may be counterproductive or self-interested, and therefore attended carefully to the choices the Legislature has made. But the majority does not bother to consider such practical matters, or even to consult a record; it simply stipulates that “enlightened self-government” can arise only in the absence of regulation. Ante, at 23. In light of the distinctive features of corporations identified in Austin, there is no valid basis for this assumption. The marketplace of ideas is not actually a place where items—or laws—are meant to be bought and sold, and when we move from the realm of economics to the realm of corporate electioneering, there may be no “reason to think the market ordering is intrinsically good at all,” Strauss 1386.

The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.

Originally Posted by Justice Stevens

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevates corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

Man, I fuckin' love how this guy writes.

[Zscout]

Stevens dissent will be looked at 10 years from now as a whisper of reason in light of a scream of insanity.

[otis_coole]

I'm happy to be safe up here and Canada. lol.

It's kinda crazy from what I've read.

[stabbyhappy]

This is sick and even more people are going to be pissed about it come campaign time when they see the results.

[hayroob]

The only way I see this not ending in a complete disaster is the Dems use this to cram the senate bill through the house or if they have to just drop healthcare.
The Dems are going to lose massively in 2010 no matter damn what so they should just accept that as a given, but if they make this their only legislative agenda they may be able to cram through an constitutional amendment to strip corporations of their status as citizens or at least taking away their free speech rights.
It would a monumental battle and they'd need to bring on a lot of republicans in the house and senate to do it, but if it doesn't get done by november a whole raft of guys who got elected by absurdly giant campaign donations will take their seats and then any hope of getting an amendment is gone. Hopefully the states could then get it ratified and 2012 would be less of a disaster.

More than likely what will happen is whats left of the healthcare bill will die, congress will basically grind to a giant filibuster filled halt and 2010 and 2012 will be elections we look back on as when we stopped trying to pretend like normal citizens have any say in how our government is run.

[jeffdrafttech]

Originally Posted by 12side

So, as I'm not at all into politics, I have a question. I am to understand that rulings are often based on other ruling in the past. That kind of "Well last time you said..." B.S., right? So is there any way to even really reverse this? Like a "Just kidding!"?

Amending the constitution to add campaign finance rules. 2/3 majority in congress plus ratified by 2/3 of states if my 25 year old memory of civics class is right. I'm too tired/lazy to look it up now.

[jeffdrafttech]

Be proud gen-Y. This story didn't even make the front page on Digg

[Zscout]

Originally Posted by hayroob

The only way I see this not ending in a complete disaster is the Dems use this to cram the senate bill through the house or if they have to just drop healthcare.
The Dems are going to lose massively in 2010 no matter damn what so they should just accept that as a given, but if they make this their only legislative agenda they may be able to cram through an constitutional amendment to strip corporations of their status as citizens or at least taking away their free speech rights.
It would a monumental battle and they'd need to bring on a lot of republicans in the house and senate to do it, but if it doesn't get done by november a whole raft of guys who got elected by absurdly giant campaign donations will take their seats and then any hope of getting an amendment is gone. Hopefully the states could then get it ratified and 2012 would be less of a disaster.

More than likely what will happen is whats left of the healthcare bill will die, congress will basically grind to a giant filibuster filled halt and 2010 and 2012 will be elections we look back on as when we stopped trying to pretend like normal citizens have any say in how our government is run.

Since the filibuster is being used for every piece of legislation, I don't see the Senate doing anything significant for years to come. The Republicans got us into this mess, and they are dam sure to keep us in it as long as the can.

[Ansur]

So corporations that got bailouts can now pay for TV ads for the people that bailed them out, and in time this November when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election.

With the government owning stock in some major corporations like GM and Citigroup, the TV ads this year should be interesting. Just remember to ignore them all and vote for anyone but the incumbent.

[jeffdrafttech]

....