Sen. Leahy: Court’s decision most partisan since Bush v. Gore

The Supreme Court’s decision on campaign spending is its
most partisan since Bush v. Gore, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.) said Thursday.

Leahy took a broadside to the decision in a floor speech,
criticizing it for overturning nearly a century of restrictions on corporate
and union independent expenditures in elections.

“The Citizens United decision turns the idea of government
of, by and for the people on its head, and creates new rights for Wall Street
at the expense of Main Street,” Leahy said.

{mosads}He condemned it as the court’s most partisan ruling since
its decision effectively declaring George W. Bush the winner of Florida and the
2000 presidential election.

“This decision is broader and more damaging in that they
have now decided to intervene in all elections,” Leahy said.

Leahy’s speech came the morning after President Barack Obama
harshly criticized the ruling in his State of the Union address. Leahy thanked
Obama for speaking out against the high court’s 5-4 decision.

Obama’s criticism led to one of the more noteworthy moments
of the night, when Justice Samuel Alito was seen mouthing the words “not true”
as Obama said the decision would open the floodgates for campaign spending by
corporations.

After the speech, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a former
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Obama was out of line to
rebuke the Supreme Court while six of its members sat nearby.

“Taking on the Supreme Court like he did, I thought it was
kind of rude,” Hatch told the Salt Lake Tribune. “It’s one thing to say that he
differed with the court but another thing to demagogue the issue while the
court is sitting there out of respect for his position.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) brushed aside Leahy’s criticism
in his own floor speech. He said recent campaign finance restrictions,
including the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, “ran afoul with the
Constitution,” and the Supreme Court was simply righting that wrong.

The case before the court involved a corporate-funded film
critical of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who was running for the
Democratic presidential nomination. The film’s sponsors wanted to distribute
and show the film in theaters during the primary contest, but the Federal
Election Commission ruled that it could not be shown because of its corporate
sponsorship.

During oral arguments, Sessions said, U.S. Solicitor General
Elena Kagan was asked whether a book criticizing a candidate could be banned
because it was published with corporate money.

“The answer was yes,” Sessions said. “And the court said,
wait a minute, this is a serious thing.”

In his address, Obama said the decision would allow even
foreign corporations to “spend without limit” in U.S. elections.

“Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled
by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities,” Obama
said. “They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging
Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps right this wrong.”

Advocates of fewer restrictions on campaign finance law
contend that the decision simply affirms the right of advocacy groups,
businesses and unions to exercise their free speech rights and does not change
existing law barring political contributions by foreign nationals.

“The president’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of
decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating
‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to
silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” Bradley Smith, a
former GOP-appointed FEC commissioner and chairman of the Center for
Competitive Politics, said in a statement.

Several lawmakers on Capitol Hill have pledged to step in to
pass laws aimed at countering the power of unions and corporations to become
involved in the country’s campaigns. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs
the Senate Rules Committee, has announced hearings on legislation to blunt the
decision’s impact.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are promoting a bill providing
public financing for congressional and presidential candidates. In the House,
the bill has 130 sponsors, and supporters say momentum is building for the idea
in the wake of the high court’s decision.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for greater
restrictions on campaign spending, has introduced a bill that would require
shareholder approval of political spending.

“Shareholders and the public have a right to know exactly
how corporations are spending their funds to influence elections and causes,
and should have to indicate express approval of their money being spent on
politics,” said Lisa Gilbert, a spokeswoman for U.S. PIRG.