weather unavailableweather unavailable

Supreme Court keeps Citizens United intact

WASHINGTON — Amid a torrent of campaign spending, a divided Supreme Court on Monday declined to take another look at the 2010 ruling that helped open up the political floodgates.

The court's decision means the increasingly secretive world of campaign contributions and the unforeseen consequences of the case known as Citizens United will remain intact for the foreseeable future. The decision also exposed a sharp split on the court, where four of the nine justices voiced unhappiness Monday about the current role of money in politics.

"Considerable experience since the court's decision in Citizens United casts grave doubt on the court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote on behalf of the four justices who wanted to revisit the 2010 case.

In its 5-4 ruling two years ago, the court declared that restrictions on independent expenditures violated the First Amendment's free-speech protections. The ruling meant corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on ads designed to help or hurt a candidate; the ruling, however, did not change the rules governing contributions made directly to candidates.

The ruling, along with related campaign finance decisions, has enabled political operatives to raise and spend record sums. Groups like American Crossroads have been pumping big bucks into Republican efforts, while Democrats have formed their own groups with names like Priorities USA.

The outside spending by non-party groups in this election cycle already has exceeded $160 million. The largest group so far, a so-called "super PAC" called Restore our Future, has spent more than $53 million in support of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Though not all of the enhanced fundraising stems directly from the Citizens United ruling, the case has become shorthand for unfettered campaign donations and spending.

The potential opportunity to revisit Citizens United arose because last year, in an extraordinary challenge to the high court's authority, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a longstanding state campaign finance law that banned corporate spending on elections.

On Monday, in its unsigned decision, the Supreme Court agreed and reversed the Montana court's actions. Breyer and the four dissenting justices agreed that the Montana court was in the wrong but still wanted the case heard fully to set the stage for winding back at least some of the Citizens United ruling.

The court's decision Monday to stick with Citizens United for the foreseeable future prompted criticism from congressional Democrats, some of whom are themselves formidable fundraisers, while Citizens United President David Bossie called it simply "another win for the First Amendment."

Florida loses out in Atlanta water ruling

The Supreme Court refused Monday to intervene in a water dispute between Alabama, Florida and Georgia that until a year ago threatened to severely restrict metro Atlanta's main water supply.

That decision means an appeals court ruling favorable to metro Atlanta will stand. Authorities in Florida, Alabama and even southern Georgia complain that Atlanta takes too much water from Lake Lanier, a federal reservoir on the Chattahoochee River, leaving too little downstream for wildlife, industry and drinking water systems.

The Chattahoochee flows south from Atlanta, forming part of the border between Alabama and Georgia. It merges with the Flint River at the Florida state line and becomes the Apalachicola River, which cuts south across the Florida Panhandle and empties into the Gulf of Mexico.

Associated Press



Supreme Court keeps Citizens United intact 06/25/12 [Last modified: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:36pm]

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, McClatchy Newspapers.
    

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

Loading...