Judicial activism, anyone? (Mail-Tribune)

[struggle4progress]

The Roberts court on Thursday turned a century of precedent on its head
January 24, 2010

The Supreme Court's campaign-finance ruling Thursday should put to rest any notion that judicial activism is a liberal phenomenon. The 5-4 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts ventured far beyond the case at hand to sweep away a century of established constitutional law and dramatically alter the nation's political landscape ...

It is a long-standing practice of the Supreme Court to limit its ruling to the question posed, and to avoid tackling broader constitutional questions unless it has to. In this case, the court majority used the Citizens United case as a springboard to decide for the first time that corporations have the same free-speech rights as individuals, and can spend any amount they wish to advertise in support of or opposition to federal candidates.

The ban dates back to 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt — a Republican — convinced Congress to prevent corporations, railroads and national banks from spending money on federal races. Unions were added to the law after World War II. The Supreme Court has upheld the restrictions ever since — until Thursday.

It is interesting that the court left intact a ban on corporations contributing directly to candidates or political parties. Apparently the five justices believe corporations enjoy First Amendment rights equal to individuals for the purpose of helping candidates indirectly, but not when it comes to filling their campaign coffers. Which raises a question: How long will it be before that restriction is lifted as well? ...

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100124/OPINION/1240301/-1/NEWSMAP

[Hekate]

1. KnR