January 21, 2010

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money on commercials intended to support or oppose the election of candidates for public office. The Court expressly overruled two precedents that permitted the government to ban such spending in order to protect the integrity of the political process.

The issue in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was whether a video-on-demand movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, paid for with corporate contributions and scheduled to be aired during the 2008 primary campaign, was an “independent expenditure” prohibited by the McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance law. After the initial argument in the case last spring, the Court ordered the parties to brief the question whether the Court should overrule its precedent that allows the federal government and state governments to ban such spending by corporations and labor unions. The Court’s decision today finds a constitutional right for corporations to make so-called “independent expenditures,” spending to advocate for or against the election of candidates.

While Colorado does have a ban on direct campaign spending by corporations and unions similar to the one at issue in today’s Supreme Court case, the ruling should have no effect on Colorado’s contribution limits or disclosure requirements for individuals, corporations or any other entity. Indeed, the Court upheld the McCain-Feingold law’s requirements that independent expenditures be disclosed, and that television ads identify who is responsible for the content of the ad.

Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro, made the following statement in response to today’s ruling: “Today’s decision is a disaster for those who oppose excessive corporate influence on our elections. It would be naïve, however, for anyone involved in elections to interpret this ruling as the end of campaign finance regulation in Colorado. Eight Supreme Court justices agreed that corporations can be required to disclose their spending and include a disclaimer stating who is responsible for a campaign ad. Strong enforcement of these requirements is more important now than ever. At Ethics Watch, we remain committed to protecting Coloradans' right to know who is spending money to influence elections and to defending the system from the corrupting influence of special interests.”

Click here for a pdf of today's decision.