High Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending

Discuss and Share

Additional Resources

Download this Video

In the first part of this video, NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn campaign finance laws that limited corporate spending on campaigns for president and Congress.

The justices voted 5-4 to throw out key provisions of campaign finance laws that dated back to 1907 in a case that dealt with a conservative group's commercial attacking Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election campaign.

In the second part of this video, Marcia Coyle of the National Law Review explains the how the controversial ruling will impact future political campaigns.

Quotes

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," - Justice Anthony Kennedy

"This particular ban, [Justice Kennedy] said, was censorship, and its reach was vast. It suppressed speech by non-profit and for-profit corporations, big and small. He also said that federal campaign finance regulation today is so complex and so burdensome -- burdensome that it actually chills speech before the laws are even applied." - Marcia Coyle

Warm Up Questions

1. What is the Supreme Court?

2. What powers does the Constitution give the Supreme Court?

Discussion Questions

1. Why would some people support limits on corporate campaign contributions? How can the power of corporations impact elections?

2. What do you think of the Supreme Court's ruling? Do you think that there should be no limits on corporate spending on presidential and congressional campaigns? Explain your answer?

3. Why do campaign finance laws exist? Are they important?

4. Research campaign finance laws. What are some other restrictions on the ways that campaigns can spend money?

Comments

Posted:
01/27/10 at
08:14 AM

J.V.Hodgson : My mom once told me that "money was the root of all evil." I have lived quite a long life and been involved in education ( basically thru financial and economic seminars to other professionals.) Mom was, is and remains right regarding money! There is already too much money in American politics. It certainly does not need more. There are two big legal system changes needed in American media, special interests,unions or corporations if they are to make politically based comment which includes direct or indirect opposition to the countries legislative bodies political appointees of House and senate then: 1) Slander or Libel of individual politicians or legislative proposals involves punitive damages and no protection if you are politician and are guilty of libel or slander of another politician or legislative proposal, or anyone else, it's called morality, being a politician or media reporter does not permit immorality or for the latter bending the words to remain just squeakily clean within the law for dramatic effect!! 2) If you wish to carry as a corporation or Action group or Union out of general or corporate funds or organisations funds to support 1) A specific candidate for election or oppose a specific candidate. 2) To oppose or be in favour of specific legislation under consideration in the Congress You need 60 % of your memberships prior approval or shareholders to run the ads pay for support in whatever form or make monetary contributions. And to be both 100% truthful and moral. The specific interests of an oil company, pharmaceutical company, any union, special interest group are well capable of being expressed when said oil, pharma company employee votes, union member votes or special interest group member votes. They are members of a special interest group and free to recruit whoever they like, but to not to then speak to the nation about a particular candidate or political party,without reasonable " checks and balances" They all have either Articles of incorporation, policy objectives, union demands/policy, etc but fundamentally cannot arbitrarily as Inanimate entities claim via a board of directors or committee or whatever top organising body to always have the 60 % majority this country demands of its politicians before speaking for the people!! By the way 5/9 is 55% on the supreme court. This latest decision by them on political funding is apolitical decision and absolutely nothing to do with the founding fathers ideas of the constitutions interpretation. TV, internet, multi national corporations, nuclear weapons Guns that can fire hundreds of rounds without re-loading, they did not exist. They created magnificent documents and concepts the interpretations today are twisted every which way you can think of by corporations and special interests, whatever, and worse still with this latest Supeme Court ruling would have them turning in thier graves it was never in thier wildest dream what was intended. They overturned previous Supreme court rulings and the counties top legislative body (McCain Feingold) That for nine judges versus 550 senators and Representatives is a disgrace upon those 5 for votes amd the legal profession as a whole Please listen to Sandra Day O'Connor on how Judges should be appointed state wise and Federally. in this case election lead to to a partisan view of law.. ridiculous!! Regards, Hodgson.

Post a Comment:

This is a teacher community that thrives on your thoughts, suggestions and comments. We would love to have a free ranging discussion in this space about the resources and how we can all encourage young people to think about current events and the world around them.

So, dive in. Tell other teachers what you like about this video, what you wish was different and what you hope to accomplish.

Especially helpful? Come back after using the video and let us know how it worked!

To ensure a productive and civil discourse, we pre-moderate comments, so it might take a little time for your comment to appear.

Thanks for waiting.

Posted:
01/27/10 at
08:14 AM

J.V.Hodgson : My mom once told me that "money was the root of all evil." I have lived quite a long life and been involved in education ( basically thru financial and economic seminars to other professionals.) Mom was, is and remains right regarding money! There is already too much money in American politics. It certainly does not need more. There are two big legal system changes needed in American media, special interests,unions or corporations if they are to make politically based comment which includes direct or indirect opposition to the countries legislative bodies political appointees of House and senate then: 1) Slander or Libel of individual politicians or legislative proposals involves punitive damages and no protection if you are politician and are guilty of libel or slander of another politician or legislative proposal, or anyone else, it's called morality, being a politician or media reporter does not permit immorality or for the latter bending the words to remain just squeakily clean within the law for dramatic effect!! 2) If you wish to carry as a corporation or Action group or Union out of general or corporate funds or organisations funds to support 1) A specific candidate for election or oppose a specific candidate. 2) To oppose or be in favour of specific legislation under consideration in the Congress You need 60 % of your memberships prior approval or shareholders to run the ads pay for support in whatever form or make monetary contributions. And to be both 100% truthful and moral. The specific interests of an oil company, pharmaceutical company, any union, special interest group are well capable of being expressed when said oil, pharma company employee votes, union member votes or special interest group member votes. They are members of a special interest group and free to recruit whoever they like, but to not to then speak to the nation about a particular candidate or political party,without reasonable " checks and balances" They all have either Articles of incorporation, policy objectives, union demands/policy, etc but fundamentally cannot arbitrarily as Inanimate entities claim via a board of directors or committee or whatever top organising body to always have the 60 % majority this country demands of its politicians before speaking for the people!! By the way 5/9 is 55% on the supreme court. This latest decision by them on political funding is apolitical decision and absolutely nothing to do with the founding fathers ideas of the constitutions interpretation. TV, internet, multi national corporations, nuclear weapons Guns that can fire hundreds of rounds without re-loading, they did not exist. They created magnificent documents and concepts the interpretations today are twisted every which way you can think of by corporations and special interests, whatever, and worse still with this latest Supeme Court ruling would have them turning in thier graves it was never in thier wildest dream what was intended. They overturned previous Supreme court rulings and the counties top legislative body (McCain Feingold) That for nine judges versus 550 senators and Representatives is a disgrace upon those 5 for votes amd the legal profession as a whole Please listen to Sandra Day O'Connor on how Judges should be appointed state wise and Federally. in this case election lead to to a partisan view of law.. ridiculous!! Regards, Hodgson.