Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech, Politics, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

Chief Justice Roberts and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor

First, there was Citizens United. Now, we have the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the McCutcheon case. It does appear that our country’s campaign finance laws may have been “eviscerated”—as noted by Justice Breyer when he wrote that, taken together with Citizens United, McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”

Corporations are people…money is speech. The more money one has to spend…the more “speech” one can afford to buy—especially where political campaigns are concerned.

Dahlia Lithwick (Slate), in writing about Chief Justice John Roberts after the court’s ruling in the McCutcheon case, said that it seemed weird: “The man takes the Metro to work, and yet he handily dismisses what every human American knows to be true: That if dollars are speech, and billions are more speech, then billionaires who spend money don’t do so for the mere joy of making themselves heard, but because it offers them a return on their investment.”

Amy Davidson (The New Yorker) said that Roberts relied on a very narrow measure of corruption in the McCutcheon ruling: “Ingratiation and access … are not corruption.” She added that the argument, in effect, is that political parties themselves cannot be corrupted: “There is a clear, administrable line between money beyond the base limits funneled in an identifiable way to a candidate—for which the candidate feels obligated—and money within the base limits given widely to a candidate’s party—for which the candidate, like all other members of the party, feels grateful.”

Roberts wrote, “Congress may target only a specific type of corruption—‘quid pro quo’ corruption.” Roberts explains what isn’t “quid pro quo” with regard to spending large sums of money on elections:

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties. And because the Government’s interest in preventing the appearance of corruption is equally confined to the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access.

SOURCES
Justice Roberts Hearts Billionaires: The chief either doesn’t believe, or doesn’t care, that money corrupts politics. (Slate)

The Devastating, Sneaky Genius of John Roberts’ Opinions: His McCutcheon decision pretends to be mild but then wrecks what remains of campaign-finance law. (Slate)

A Blistering Dissent in ‘McCutcheon’: Conservatives Substituted Opinion for Fact (Moyers & Company)

Justice Roberts Defends the Embattled Rich in McCutcheon (The New Yorker)

The John Roberts Project (The New Yorker)

 

287 thoughts on “Chief Justice Roberts and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission”

  1. This is crazy Jonathan….. That was directed at you….. You deleted it…. It’s your blog…. You can let the rude ones ruin it…. It’s your choice…. Again… What do they have on you?

    1. AY, I did not delete one but a series of your comments. I cannot imagine that you honestly believe that these were comments in compliance with our policy. I did delete one comment directed at me because of digs at individuals and the fact that it came as part of a series of postings that had to be deleted. I take such comments seriously when directed to me, but they are more persuasive when they are not part of a series of posts violating our policy. Once again, you can email me with any comment that you believe violates the rule. I will try to get over the to the site unless I am in court. Finally, no one has anything on me AY. I have no desire to delete any posts and I only do so in the clearest possible cases. Indeed, I resent having to repeatedly delete posts from the same people. You have insightful comments and views expressed on this blog. I value those posts and accordingly I fail to understand the difficulty in complying with our civility rule.

  2. Deletion notice: I have again had to delete numerous comments by AY and Dredd in this thread. I fail to understand why this is necessary. Both AY and Dredd continue to post nasty and personal attacks. When I looked at the alleged impetus for these comments, I have not found violations warranting deletion. I truly do not understand why it is necessary for me to continue to do this. We are simply not interested in juvenile personal jabs at other posters. It is time to move on, please. If you cannot discuss these issues without taking pot shots at opposing posters, there is a universe of other blogs for you to go to. I have no dog in this fight. I am not interested in the merits of the issue in reviewing comments and I play no favorites. I simply ask that you act as adults. This site was created originally for my students, who continue to frequent the site. I try to teach civility and respect for opposing views in my class and on this site. That has proven a relatively easy standard for 99 percent of our posters. I fail to see why it is such a challenge for others. Please comply with the policy or stop commenting on this site. Your cooperate would be greatly appreciated.

  3. Dredd – I went to your link but it went to your blog, it is bad form to cite yourself, and it had to do with the President of the United States. Have another link that is not to yourself?

    1. AY – I think the Kenya site is done by Obama’s relatives. Several seem to think he was born there.

  6. Take your pick… Google this….

    did chief justice roberts violate his oath of office

    1. You can also google is Barak Obama from Kenya. So what is your point?

  7. Schulte also means to nurture. to train, to indoctrinate. This is why I made a great teacher. 🙂 Thanks for looking it up. Before the Internet I never knew.

  8. Paul Schulte (schulte means trained, indoctrinated BTW)

    Dredd – since corporations seem to have been recognized as a legal person since the early 19th century …
    ================
    They were always aborted before they became a person (what is that for you guys now, soon as you pull out?).

    They were conceived for a specific purpose, like building a bridge, then were aborted once the bridge was completed.

    Once upon a time when there was no T-Bagger mental malfunction, they knew that calling imaginary things people would get you into the looney bin. Now it gets you in the T-Bag.

    Like Sarah Palin in the following Bill Maher new rules that explains why you have no working memory (they did not even invite corporate persons to the convention!):

  9. Dredd – what we have come to in this discussion of Robert’s violating his oath of office is that you cannot back it up. If you could have you would have jumped at the chance.

  10. I think conservatives, myself included were horrified when he voted to uphold Obamacare based on the ‘fact’ that it was a tax. I do not remember anyone saying he violated his oath of office. And as chief justice he can or cannot deliver the oath of office to the incoming President. It goes with the job, just like presiding over an impeachment trial of a President.

  11. Dredd,

    Something kinda funny is that conservatives have claimed Roberts violated his oath of office by affirming the ACA…… And another time administering the oath of office to Obama….. My my some have short convient memories….

  12. Paul Schulte

    Dredd – you made the claim – back it up.
    ==============
    You never do.

    This is not the uncertain gene site.

  13. Paul Schulte

    Dredd – well as long as the Supreme Court doesn’t allow same-corporate marriages, I will be okay. 🙂
    ===============
    The supreme cornservative five are in illegitimate relations with the fiction they think is a person.

    They are legal jerk offs.

  14. “The other part of the story is the development of corporations, which is an interesting story in itself. Adam Smith didn’t say much about them, but he did criticize the early stages of them. Jefferson lived long enough to see the beginnings, and he was very strongly opposed to them. But the development of corporations really took place in the early twentieth century and very late in the nineteenth century. Originally, corporations existed as a public service. People would get together to build a bridge and they would be incorporated for that purpose by the state. They built the bridge and that’s it. They were supposed to have a public interest function. Well into the 1870s, states were removing corporate charters. They were granted by the state. They didn’t have any other authority. They were fictions. They were removing corporate charters because they weren’t serving a public function. But then you get into the period of the trusts and various efforts to consolidate power that were beginning to be made in the late nineteenth century. It’s interesting to look at the literature. The courts didn’t really accept it. There were some hints about it. It wasn’t until the early twentieth century that courts and lawyers designed a new socioeconomic system. It was never done by legislation. It was done mostly by courts and lawyers and the power they could exercise over individual states.” (Corp Germ > Corp Seed > Corp Monster).

    1. Dredd – since corporations seem to have been recognized as a legal person since the early 19th century, I am not sure why you think they are the only ones who think that way. Own stock? That is in a corporation, Mutual funds? Stocks in corporations. Own an smart phone? Built by a corporation. Use the Internet today? Brought to you by a corporation.

      Just don’t understand this intense dislike you seem to have for corporations.

  15. Dredd – well as long as the Supreme Court doesn’t allow same-corporate marriages, I will be okay. 🙂

  17. Paul Schulte

    Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law.
    …
    =================
    Corporations are created by state law, not federal law.

    What they are is a state matter.

    The conservative activists on the court are making legal saucage that will rot with time but in the mean time has no food value.

    It is poison.

  18. If corporations are people why don’t they pay the same tax rate as a person would?

    1. Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood “people” apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

      Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court’s opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, “Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution.”[2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since

Comments are closed.