Citizens United

In this week's New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin criticizes the Supreme Court's handling of Citizens United v. FEC, which affirmed a corporation's First Amendment right to spend money on independent speech on political issues, even when that speech criticizes candidates for office.

A proposed draft of an executive order that would require disclosure of political contributions by federal contractors has been circulating in Washington, D.C.:

Jeffrey Toobin writes in this week's New Yorker on the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. While some of it is merely disagreeable, his conclusion is arrant nonsense:

Common Cause embarrassed itself by attempting to disqualify Justices Scalia and Thomas from the Supreme Court's review of Citizens United v. FEC, in Common Cause's last-ditch effort to overturn the Court's year-old pro-free speech decision. Ben Smith's report demonstrates precisely how unfounded Common Cause's attack was.

The New York Times runs a story today based on what appears to be an obviously frivolous petition filed at the Justice Department by the partisan left-wing activist group Common Cause. The group alleges that Justices Scalia and Thomas, by virtue of their appearance at a seminar held in Palm Springs by the libertarian Koch brothers, created a conflict of interest for themselves that should disqualify their votes in the Citizens United case.

To hear liberals tell it, the Citizens United decision unleashed a torrent of frightful, unregulated free political speech that will drown out the voices of regular citizens in favor of powerful and nefarious corporate forces.

I happen to be a fan of free speech. I'm not a fan of the alternative, which the government's lawyer in Citizens United admitted would allow the banning of books to "protect" the free speech of non-corporate entities.

As Philip Terzian noted, Justice Thomas spoke at a law school this week where he addressed student questions about the Citizens United decision. Because it's just plain fun to hear justices get candid—particularly Thomas and Scalia— I'm pulling out some quotes from the event:

Regarding Obama v. SCOTUS majority in Citizens United, which continues to be a story at least in Washington: Count me among those who believe that a president may criticize an opinion by the Court. As Lincoln once said (though before he became president) a Supreme court decision is not a “thus sayeth the Lord.” Even so, there are better and worse ways for a president to take on a particular ruling, and Obama’s was, to say the least, provocative.

Many immediately proclaimed last week’s Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision as a huge win for business “special interests.”  But those quick draw reactions are based more on ideology and political rhetoric than hard facts.  While this latest change in the campaign finance landscape creates new options for both business and labor, it’s unclear if and how either side will use these new opportunities.

The famous Capra film about an optimistic outsider's impact on a jaded, entrenched Washington is getting a lot of attention this week, as a friendly populist with a common name rides down to D.C. in his truck.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision gave the iconic film yet another mention this week in an argument for free speech with a populist appeal. From Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority: