5-4 Supreme Court ruling smacks of partisanship

Last week’s Supreme Court decision to give corporations the freedom to spend as much money as they want on political campaign advertising was shocking, whether you liked it or not. While commentators from the left and right have argued vehemently both for and against the decision, most people seem to be ignoring the obvious subtext: Today’s Supreme Court is frighteningly partisan.

The timing of the 5-4 decision — by what liberal commentators call “the Roberts Court†— could not have been worse, considering the string of corporate excesses we have seen during the past decade. American citizens are fed up with corporate coddling, bailouts, executive bonuses and zero accountability. Now these companies are going to be allowed to spend as much as they want to elect their favorite candidates.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the court’s decision is its affirmation of the notion that a corporation has the same rights as an individual American citizen, despite the fact that corporations don’t live, breathe, vote or register for the draft. The court contends that restricting a corporation’s ability to fund campaigns violates its First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, even though a corporation cannot speak.

Like the Bush v. Gore decision of 2000, last week’s decision came down to a partisan showdown in which the minority opinion was essentially ignored. In his dissent, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens questioned the “corporation as citizen†philosophy. “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the court’s disposition of this case,†he wrote. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.â€

Stevens went on to say it is the duty of the lawmakers to know when to rein in corporate influence on U.S. elections.

In stark contrast, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said corporations’ rights cannot be arbitrarily limited. “We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject,†he wrote. “As the foregoing analysis confirms, the court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment.â€

Without getting into the extended jargon, it was obvious through reading the decision that the right wing of the court — Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — was writing in defense of wealthy corporations, while Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor were more concerned with the rights of people and, specifically, the disadvantaged. The parallels to our country’s endless partisan bickering are clear.

The irony of last week’s decision is also clear, as a slim majority on the Supreme Court ended up favoring a powerful minority’s right to financially overpower the majority.

The complete decision is worth reading online at law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html.