A case of corporate ‘speech’

last updated 8 January 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court this week appeared poised to wipe away century-old limits on corporate campaign spending. During arguments in a case that could transform national politics, several justices voiced sympathy for the argument that it’s a violation of free speech to limit how much corporations, unions, and interest groups can spend on campaigns. The case stems from a 2008 ruling that barred a conservative organization from distributing a scathing documentary about Hillary Clinton.

The court originally took up the matter in March, but in an unusual move, it called for additional arguments—a sign that the five-member conservative majority could be ready to overturn all or most limits on corporate political spending. Comments from justices this week did little to change that impression. “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of bureaucrats,” Justice Antonin Scalia declared. Chief Justice John Roberts scoffed at an Obama administration lawyer’s contention that restrictions were needed to protect shareholders who disagree with a company’s political positions, calling that argument “extraordinarily paternalistic.”

The justices could be on the verge of “surrendering control of our democracy to corporate interests,” said E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. That may sound “melodramatic,” but the stakes are that high. Since 1907, federal law has barred corporations from directly funding campaigns, because otherwise, already powerful interests could fill Congress with handpicked lackeys. “If corporations are allowed to spend their own treasure on elections,” said The New York Times in an editorial, “it would usher in an unprecedented age of special-interest politics.”