Since John G. Roberts Jr became chief justice five years ago, focus has been on the Supreme Court's changing makeup and shifting ideology. In the coming months, the Washington Post will examine the real-world consequences of the court's rulings in communities across the nation.
RIVER FALLS, WIS. - Sometimes, it takes years to see the impact of a Supreme Court decision on American life, and sometimes a ruling lands with an explosion.
The Roberts Court's game-changing decisions on campaign finance reform have been both.
Almost from the moment Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the bench five years ago, the court's conservatives have acted systematically on their deep skepticism of campaign spending restrictions. They repeatedly have questioned the ability of Congress to restrict the role of wealth and special interest involvement in elections without offending the First Amendment guarantee of unfettered political speech.
The result has been perhaps the most striking example of how the Roberts Court differs from its predecessor. And it has created a more prominent role for the Supreme Court in this year's midterm elections than at any time since its polarizing decision 10 years ago in Bush v. Gore.
In decision after decision, the court has cut back major parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act of 2002. The capstone came in January, with its 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that rewrote decades of law and said corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose candidates.
The court's rulings are being felt this year everywhere voters go to the polls. But they have special resonance here in Wisconsin, where the Democratic half of McCain-Feingold has seen not only his legislative legacy endangered but also his Senate career.
"I've always been a target in this stuff," Sen. Russ Feingold said during a recent swing through the western part of his state. "And this year, I'm getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads [criticizing him] that used to not be legal."
It's not surprising, Feingold told a small group of supporters recently on the windswept campus of the University of Wisconsin at River Falls. He pointed to a recent piece in Washingtonian magazine that divided the Senate into categories.
"I wasn't fourth, third, second, I was the number one enemy of Washington lobbyists," he said, adding, "A Senate seat can't be bought, it has to be earned. We will never let the special interests drown out the voices of the people."
This year's elections have seen a tidal wave of campaign spending by outside groups, many of whom do not disclose their donors. That has more to do with disclosure decisions by the FEC and the Internal Revenue Service than the specifics of the Citizens United decision, experts say.
But critics of the ruling say it provided a psychological boost for corporate executives nervous about the legality of their role in supporting or opposing candidates. And the midterm elections have shown the justices' lack of familiarity with the realities of campaign fundraising and disclosure laws , they say.
rest at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102903915.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
No comments:
Post a Comment