In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures."

"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.

The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.

Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast it.

Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold.

"Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of restrictions.

This is the legacy of the Bush administration - total corporate ownership of our government.

Corporations are not people.

If you take the total profits of all the fortune 100 companies, it's something like 600 billion dollars. If those corporations took just 1% of that profit, and put it into electoral politics, they would spend more than twice the amount spent in total for the Obama, McCain, and every senate and congressional race in 2008. Just 1%.

Corporations are not people.

If you take the total profits of all the fortune 100 companies, it's something like 600 billion dollars. If those corporations took just 1% of that profit, and put it into electoral politics, they would spend more than twice the amount spent in total for the Obama, McCain, and every senate and congressional race in 2008. Just 1%.

yet more reason to hate this country and all of the people running it. It hits the point more and more where I am saddened that we have soldiers who have died to protect the ideals this country was founded on; and the ideals no longer apply. They are now really dying to protect the direct monetary interests of those in power.
{snip}

Its interesting that 8 of the top 10 political spending groups in the US, both directly and indirectly, are labor unions. Its equally interesting that the sole focus by fringe lunatics is purely on the corporations and not the unions.

Its also equally interesting to examine the political spending of unions and how it relates to the actual political beliefs of their members. Unions truly make the individuals irrelevent.

Are the unions immune from pulling crap and making deals and being in the back pockets of the dems? Why aren't the two libs voicing concern not up in arms about what the unions will do? Wait, you don't have to answer that....

If it were up to me, I'd disallow all direct lobbying to elected officials or candidates by anyone other than individuals.

Hi. You must be new here.

/em bonks Aizle with an orc shovel

The law treats both of the entities you mentioned as individuals.

Heh. I'm actually just trying to do some damage control for my position.