Jun 29, 2009 -- Citizens United Deferral Raises Troubling Possibilities: Statement of Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center President

The Supreme Court's decision to ask for argument on whether to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , and related portions of McConnell v. FEC is deeply troubling. There is no reason for the Supreme Court to alter over 100 years of federal policy restricting corporate campaign finance activity in federal elections. Corporations have special legal benefits which enable them to collect vast amounts of money for non-political purposes. They are not voters. In these circumstances, there is no reason to allow them to spend their vast commercial funds in elections.

The fact that the Court is considering overturning such a longtime precedent, reaffirmed only six years ago in McConnell , shows the potential for a disturbing lack of judicial restraint. The only thing that has changed since the McConnell decision is the arrival on the court of two new justices, each of whom spoke about of the importance of stare decisis and judicial modesty at their confirmation hearings.

Both the Austin and McConnell cases are not only cornerstones of campaign finance law, they reflect the century-old curbs on political activity by corporations. To reopen this channel of unlimited corporate political expenditures would distort and corrupt our political system.

The Tillman Act of 1907, which established the corporate contribution ban, was passed during the Administration of Teddy Roosevelt, who campaigned vigorously against the rampant abuses of the political system by the corporations of the day. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 extended the ban to include corporate expenditures on federal elections and extended the contribution and expenditure bans to labor unions. A return to such an era, currently being considered by the Court, would ignore a century of Supreme Court precedent and would be a grave disservice to our democracy.