The Supreme Court began considering whether to end some prohibitions on spending by corporations and labor unions in political campaigns, in a case that arose from a movie critical of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
During oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, plaintiff attorney Theodore Olson argued that Hillary: The Movie was protected speech under the First Amendment and should have been allowed to air during the last presidential primary season.
"Robust debate ... is the most fundamental value" protected by the First Amendment, Olson told the justices.
But Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued that Citizens United, a conservative research organization, violated the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law by using some corporate and union money to make the partisan, 90-minute film.
Citizens United wants to end the ban on corporate and union spending. The limits on corporate money have been around for more than 100 years, and the limits on union spending have existed since the 1940s.
The justices cut their summer break short to hear the arguments in a special session before the new term officially begins next month. Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor was quick to jump into the fray. She expressed skepticism about the idea of overturning efforts to curb corporate and union spending on campaigns. Precedents in 1990 and 2003 upheld the limitations.
Experts have said the court's decision depends largely on whether Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, would vote against precedent. Both spoke at length in their Senate confirmation hearings about the importance of abiding by precedents — even in cases in which they would have voted the other way in earlier decisions.
The other three conservative-leaning justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, are on record opposing the restrictions on corporations and unions.
Justice Stephen Breyer expressed doubts about rolling back the requirements. He suggested that to do so might "make a hash" of campaign finance reforms enacted by Congress in 2002.
It was the second time the court heard arguments in the case, which began as a dispute over whether the movie should be regulated as a campaign ad. Because of the FEC ruling and a decision by a lower court, the movie could only be advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.
But it took on greater significance after the justices decided to use the case to consider whether to ease restrictions on how corporations and labor unions may spend money to influence elections.
After the proceedings, Arizona Sen. John McCain said he was disappointed that some of the justices appeared to be leaning toward lifting the ban.
"I was rather disappointed in some of the justices' apparent naivete about the influence of corporate and union soft money on the legislative process. The questioning shows a great disconnect between the justices and the reality" of politics, he said.
In a statement released jointly with Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, the two said overturning the ban on corporate and union dollars would give big corporations a bigger voice in elections.
"At stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of Americans that could be drowned out by large corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate electioneering are called into question," the lawmakers said.
But Steve Simpson, a lawyer who filed a brief in support of Citizens United, said overturning the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law would ensure that free speech rights are protected.
"A ban on Hillary The Movie today would mean a ban on the book tomorrow and a ban on newspaper communications the day after," he said on the steps outside the Supreme Court building.
From NPR and wire service reports
Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org. 9(MDAzMjM2NDYzMDEyMzc1Njk5NjAxNzY3OQ001))
