Chief Justice John Roberts complained about President Obama's State-of-the-Union critique of the high court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, saying the address had become too political. The Associated Press reported that following a speech to University of Alabama law students, Roberts responded to a student's question about the president's criticism of the decision. "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts said.

Roberts conceded that anyone is free to criticize Supreme Court rulings, but in this instance the surroundings called for muted or no criticism. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according [to] the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Several media sources following the State of the Union, noted that Justice Samuel Alito did not sit expressionless, mouthing the words "not true," to Obama's criticism of Citizens United. The decision invalidated decades of regulation of corporate campaign financing, making it easier for corporations to spend freely on electioneering.

The AP reported that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked about Roberts' comments, said, "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans."

Recently, ACS hosted a national event focusing on the implications of the decision. Video of the event is here. Following the event, Professor William P. Marshall, a constitutional law expert, talked with ACSblog about what the decision reveals about the Supreme Court, and elections law expert Joseph Sandler focused on what the decision may mean for future elections. 

Following the Supreme Court decision on corporate campaign finance regulation, ACS hosted a national event exploring potential ramifications on democracy and the future of regulating corporate expenditures on elections.

Joseph E. Sandler, a nationally recognized expert on elections law, joined the panel discussion and afterwards talked with ACSblog about how the decision in Citizens United v. FEC could alter electoral politics. Conceding that the decision's impact may be "very difficult to predict," Sandler said nonetheless it may now be "tempting" for some corporations "to get into the game in a way they wouldn't have done before."

Video of the entire event, "Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, and the Road Ahead," is available here. Watch Sandler's interview below or download it as a podcast here.

Following an ACS event exploring the legal and political fallout of the Supreme Court's recent corporate campaign finance decision, constitutional law expert William P. Marshall talked with ACSblog about the ruling and the Roberts Court. Marshall, a law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law and member of the ACS Board of Directors, said the decision in Citizens Untied v. FEC shows that "although the Roberts Court is conservative politically, it indicates that it is not a conservative court, judicially."

"This is one of the more activist decisions we've seen in sometime," Marshall said. He noted that the decision, which said corporations, may spend freely on elections, "put in doubt over a hundred years of legislation dealing with the regulation of corporate activity in campaigns."

Marshall moderated a panel discussion, including Jan W. Baran, Laurence E. Gold, James S. Portnoy, Joseph E. Sandler and Monica Youn, at the National Press Club on Citizens United. Video of the discussion is here. Watch Marshall's interview with ACSblog below or download of podcast of it here.

A recent PBS "Bill Moyers Journal," episode focused on the fallout of the high court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, and especially how it could impact the election of judges. The Feb. 19 program revisits a 1999 "Frontline" program that investigated increasing concern about campaign contributions' impact on the judiciary and noted a recent comment from retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that the most disconcerting fallout of Citizens United may be its influence on judicial elections. The program also includes commentary from The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin, who said the decision, which held that corporations may spend freely on elections, could have a staggering impact on the courts in states where judges are elected.

Toobin maintains:

I think judicial elections are really the untold story of Citizens United, the untold implication. Because when the decision happened, a lot of people said, 'Okay. This means that Exxon will spend millions of dollars to defeat Barack Obama when he runs for re-election.' I don't think there's any chance of that at all. That's too high profile. There's too much money available from other sources in a presidential race. But judicial elections are really a national scandal that few people really know about. Because corporations in particular, and labor unions to a lesser extent, have such tremendous interest in who's on state supreme courts and even lower state courts that that's where they're going to put their money and their energy because they'll get better bang for their buck there.

Watch video of the program here or by clicking on the picture. 

On Feb. 24, ACS will host an event at the National Press Club further exploring the political and legal fallout from Citizens United. See here for information on the event. 

Large swaths of the American population oppose the Supreme Court's recent ruling on corporate campaign spending, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent ‘strongly' opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits," The Washington Post reported.

The newspaper reported that the polling also revealed "little difference of opinion on the issue among" Democrats and Republicans and that it suggested "a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision."

Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, noted that the survey also revealed that even some supporters of the Tea Party movement, which rails against the federal government, oppose the outcome in Citizens United.

"Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement," Langer wrote, "73 percent oppose the high court's rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strong with the Tea Party's position on the issues - 14 percent of all adults - fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case."

Langer's post includes the entire polling data here.

The 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission found that corporations have free speech rights to spend on campaigns, overturning decades of precedent upholding regulations on corporate campaign financing.

The Post noted that Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen are working on legislation addressing the ruling in Citizens United. In response to the new poll, Sen. Schumer, said, "If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interest in our politics."

ACS will host a panel discussion on Feb. 24 at the National Press Club on the implications of the ruling, including how it may impact the midterm elections. The panel discussion will include Jan W. Baran, a nationally recognized campaign and elections law attorney, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Citizens United arguing in support of corporations' free speech rights to spend on campaigns, and Joseph Sandler, a former general counsel for the Democratic National Committee, and also a campaign finance law expert. Following the ruling, Sandler told USA Today that it will likely make it a tougher challenge for incumbents seeking reelection.

See here for more information about the ACS event, "Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, and the Road Ahead." Check here for additional expert commentary on the case from ACSblog. 

The Senate Committee on Rules & Administration considered ways to counter the Supreme Court's Jan. 21 decision that limited Congress' ability to regulate corporate campaign spending. During yesterday's hearing, called "Corporate America vs. The Voter," Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken testified that the Supreme Court "has gradually dismantled key campaign-finance provisions that were designed to protect our democratic system from the damaging effects of money and undue influence." Gerken, a frequent ACS participant, told the Senate Committee that even after the high court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, there remained avenues "for congressional action." Professor Gerken urged new legislation to "strengthen disclaimer and disclosure rules for corporations' independent expenditures," for regulation to "ensure that shareholders exert meaningful control over corporate spending," and for Congress to "take steps to protect U.S. elections from foreign influence." Gerken's prepared testimony is available here.

The Committee also heard from Sens. John Kerry and Russell D. Feingold. Sen. Kerry called for a "constitutional amendment to make clear that corporations do not have the same speech rights as individuals," The Christian Science Monitor reported.

In his opening remarks, Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Schumer maintained that the "changes that are likely to result from the Citizens United case have the potential to be disastrous to the health of our democracy, inviting unprecedented spending and influence by wealthy special interests." An archived Web case of the hearing is available here.

Other congressional committees are also investigating ways to respond to Citizens United. The Monitor reported that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution would conduct a hearing today on Citizens United. The House Administration Committee is also conducting a Feb. 3 hearing on the decision. 

[image via thebestgovernmentmoneycanbuy.com]

With the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearing on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" scheduled for tomorrow, another hearing on a controversial issue is being overlooked by many.

The Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling in Citizens United v. FEC has drawn the ire of some on Capitol Hill. That case -- and how Congress might blunt its force before the mid-term elections -- is the topic of tomorrow's hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, entitled "Corporate America vs. The Voter: Examining the Supreme Court's Decision to Allow Unlimited Corporate Spending in Elections."

The witness list includes two ACSblog guest contributors: Professor Heather Gerken of Yale Law School and Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, whose immediate reaction to the decision is available here. 

[image via www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org]

President Obama has stirred some loud complaints for critiquing the Supreme Court's controversial opinion in Citizens United v. FEC during his State of the Union address. Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the majority in Citizens United, expressed frustration during the president's criticism, reportedly mouthing the words "not true."

But Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money notes a couple of examples of politicians, including a president, taking quick and sharp shots at Supreme Court decisions. Lemieux cites:

• "The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy [sic] was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators - not a single state had such unrestricted abortion [sic] before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars...Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution." --Saint Ronald Reagan, 1983

• "After a day of consideration, the McCain Campaign has decided to come out hard against yesterday's 5 to 4 decision to grant more rights to court review for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," McCain said. He went on to quote from Justice Roberts dissent in the case, rail against "unaccountable judges," and say that the courts are about to be clogged with cases from detainees."

[image via goldenstate.files] 

In 1966, because of the fear of foreign influence in U.S. elections, Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Eventually incorporated in the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, the law prohibits foreign governments, foreign political parties, foreign corporations and individuals with foreign citizenship from contributing, donating or spending funds, either directly or indirectly, in any U.S. election.

While this law has been important to the functioning of our democracy, the Supreme Court, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, has moved perilously close to abolishing it and opening the U.S. political process to foreign money, influence and--given the structure of some multinational corporations--direct pressure from foreign governments.

This change stems from the majority opinion's unprecedented elevation of corporations to equal status with individual citizens in the sphere of political speech. For convenience's sake, the law does periodically describe corporations as "legal persons" and "citizens" of the state in which they are incorporated. But in Citizens United, the majority has taken this legal short-hand literally. In the majority's opinion, courts are no longer permitted to take into consideration elements such as limited liability, perpetual life and preferential tax treatment that distinguish a corporation from an individual citizen when analyzing a corporation's rights, nor are courts are allowed to treat corporations differently from actual persons (as they have been doing since the country's founding.) After Citizens United, the law can no longer look behind the curtain of the corporate form: Citizens United commands that the law pertaining to political speech treat corporations exactly as individual citizens. Simply put, distinctions between corporations and human beings are no longer permissible and limitations on corporations' political speech are unconstitutional.

In treating corporations the same as individuals, Citizens United leaves the door wide open for foreign influence in our politics. In the case of Chinese corporations, this also means foreign government involvement. Most multinational Chinese corporations, like Haier, China Telcom, and China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCE), have U.S. subsidiaries. These are companies incorporated in the United States: Haier's U.S. subsidiary, Haier American Holding Corporation, China Telecom's subsidiary, China Telecom Americas, and CSCE's subsidiary, China Construction America, are all incorporated in Delaware.

Under Citizens United, all three of these subsidiaries are citizens of Delaware and enjoy the same political speech rights as any other citizen of the United States. Citizens United does not permit us to look behind their corporate veil to see their relationship to foreign corporations. But make no mistake: these subsidiaries are heavily influenced--if not outright controlled--by their Chinese parent corporation. This is not unique to Chinese corporations. In a parent-subsidiary relationship, especially for foreign corporations, there is a lot of overlap between the parent and its U.S. subsidiary; the parent usually owns a majority, if not all of the shares of the subsidiary; capital is often infused to the subsidiary from the parent; and directors from the parent's board usually sit on the subsidiary's board of directors. This is the relationship that Haier, China Telcom, and CSCE all have with their U.S. subsidiaries.

What is unique to Chinese corporations is the scope of their government ties--indeed, some are controlled outright by the Beijing government. Unlike in, say, Western Europe, places like China, Russia and Vietnam still have a fair share of government-run corporations. Haier, China Telecom and CSCE are all officially government-run. While the Chinese government does not meddle in the corporation's daily affairs, it will exert its influence if it suits the government's self-interest. For example, in 1994, Haier, a manufacturer of washing machines and refrigerators, was pressured by the Chinese government into acquiring a pharmaceutical company, a venture that ended badly.

Citizens United allows for the very real possibility of the Chinese government's direct influence in our elections through a Chinese corporation's U.S. subsidiary. While no official number exists about the number of Chinese companies with a U.S. subsidiary corporation, Dan Harris, a partner at the international law firm Harris & Moure and editor of the China Law Blog, believes that the number is substantial. "My small firm represents a number of U.S. companies that are wholly-owned by Chinese companies or by Chinese citizens and that convinces me there must be thousands of such companies in the U.S." While certainly not all of these Chinese companies with a U.S. presence are directly owned by the Chinese government, there are likely many more than just Haier, China Telecom and CSCE. And given China's vast currency reserves ($2.4 trillion, the world's largest), the Chinese government certainly has the money to spend on U.S. elections should it choose to do so. Corporations in other countries, particularly oil-rich ones like Saudi Arabia and Russia, also own U.S. subsidiaries. The threat of foreign involvement in our elections has been noted by the White House, as seen in the Obama's critique of the decision during his State of the Union, and by Congress as it explores ways to nullify Citizens Untied.

This issue wasn't completely lost on the majority in Citizens United -- they simply chose not to deal with it. While the majority hinted that there could be a compelling interest in preventing foreign nationals, foreign corporations or foreign governments from influencing the political process, the logic underlying Citizens United's literal definition of the corporation as citizen prevents this. After Citizens United, courts are no longer allowed to look behind the curtain of the corporate form to the realities of the situation or to distinguish between corporate citizens and individual ones; the majority opinion allows no leeway to examine the foreign origins of the shareholders. For the purposes of political speech, one person's U.S. citizenship, be it from a passport or from the documents of incorporation, is just as good as another's; to draw distinctions would be discriminatory.

Given that the majority in Citizens United so easily overturned it previous rulings with regard to limitations on corporate participation in elections, one ought not expect the Court to maintain any consistency when a case involving political donations from a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation comes before it. The Justices will want to reach the result that American subsidiaries controlled by foreign entities cannot provide support to political activities; Justice Alito, with his mouthing of the word "not true" during Obama's State of the Union address, certainly signaled this. Such a result, however, will require the Court to overturn the logic of the corporate citizen as equal to an individual citizen. A majority will likely call this an "exception." In reality, it is more of an excuse. In either case, such a ruling will likely prove difficult to enforce.

Many Chinese corporations have American subsidiaries that are private, i.e., are not subject to the same reporting requirements as publicly-traded ones. In some states, such private corporations have no reporting requirements at all. With a private corporation, it is difficult to determine share ownership, identity of officers or even names of the directors. This difficult detective work will become the responsibility of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Ironically, the majority in Citizens United found that the campaign finance law's requirement that corporations work through their Political Action Committees (PACs) during the law's 30-60 day quiet period was too burdensome since it required copious amounts of paperwork. Imagine the time, effort and money the FEC will be required to put out in to determining the ownership of any number of private corporations.

In equating corporate citizenship with individual citizenship, the Court does more than just disregard its own rules of precedent and stare decisis. It also provides an image of a corporation completely disconnected from reality, does a grave disservice to our political process and jeopardizes our democracy. And that, Justice Alito, is the truth.

[image via www.climaticoanalysis.org]  

On "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Stewart and correspondent Jon Oliver examine the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United.