In it, but not of it. TPM DC

Justice Stevens: Citizens United Ruling Will Fall Apart

Brgnriay7k0rv2so7j78
Newscom

"[T]he Court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify its reliance upon, proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech," Stevens said Wednesday night, according to prepared remarks. "It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters."

Stevens -- who received the Presidential Medal Of Freedom one day before his speech -- argued that a later decision to circumscribe First Amendment rights when political speech benefits terrorist organizations reveals a potentially fatal flaw in the premise of Citizens United. "I think it necessarily follows that such speech made or financed by the terrorist organization itself would receive no constitutional protection," he said.

Once that distinction is made, the Ford-appointed justice continued, it would bring a core pillar of Citizens United back into question. If foreign entities are barred from bankrolling U.S. elections, then the court is conceding that "the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech."

Not only would that require the court to explicitly explain why corporations meet the standard (Stevens argues they shouldn't because they can't vote), it would also bring into question the blurring of lines between issue advocacy and campaign speech in Citizens United.

The Citizens United decision was predicated on an encompassing interpretation of First Amendment rights that won over some unlikely allies. But the January 2010 ruling remains broadly unpopular and a topic of ire among advocates of campaign finance reform -- some movement progressives are even pushing for a Constitutional amendment to overturn it. It has been savagely mocked by comedian Stephen Colbert.

Sitting justices who dissented in the 5-4 ruling haven't given up on reversing the controversial ruling, either. A recent dust-up between the Supreme Court and Montana -- whose courts recently upheld its ban on corporate expenditures in state elections -- incited Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to petition the court to reconsider Citizens United.

"Montana's experience -- and experience elsewhere since [the decision] -- make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,'" Ginsberg wrote. Granting certiorari, she added, "will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."

About The Author

Rbzswuatscnipmb5upus

Sahil Kapur is TPM's senior congressional reporter and Supreme Court correspondent. His articles have been published in the Huffington Post, The Guardian and The New Republic. Email him at sahil@talkingpointsmemo.com and follow him on Twitter at @sahilkapur.

Progress overnight on deployment of new commenting system. We hope to move into a short beta-testing phase shortly.