Setting no Precedent: Citizen's United v the Federal Election Commision

A recent Supreme Court ruling has struck down most, if not all, laws restricting corporate contributions to elected officials, in addition to defying its own rulings. This decision was not only activist in the extreme (the plaintiff specifically declined to ask the court for the laws to be struck down, but asked if the law was applicable), it flies in the face of our entire legal system and sends us down the path to anarchy.

This violates not only the Oaths of Office the Justices took, but also the common law foundation of precedent and the Seventh Amendment.

In December of 2007, Citizen's United, a Non-Profit Political Corporation claimed to have wanted to offer "Hillary: the Movie," OnDemand within thirty days of the 2008 Primary. With a $12M annual budget, the $1.2M cost for airing their film would have been achievable. Though this is fairly obviously not covered by Federal electioneering laws (though covered by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in regards to disclaimer and disclosure requirements), and there was little chance that the FEC might seek to block this move (the head of the FEC was a Bush appointee at the time), rather than wait for the FEC ruling, or even bothering to ask for clarification from the FEC, Citizen's United sued, seeking a preliminary injunction in Federal District Court.

Citizen's United sought to injunct the FEC, not against applying a decision rendered, but against them having the legal authority to make such a judgment--one way or the other. That's right, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief from a judgment that did not exist. Citizen's United also argued against the applicability of BCRA (aka McCain-Feingold), again before the FEC was given the opportunity to determine whether it did. The district court dismissed this, in part because, well, the FEC is the agency responsible for ensuring lawful conduct during Federal Elections:

“Based on the reasoning of our prior opinion, we find that the [FEC] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." and that “the Supreme Court has written approvingly of disclosure provisions triggered by political speech even though the speech itself was constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.”
Citizen[s] United v. FEC

Election laws are in place to prevent the corruption and/or distortion of elections through various means. Many corporations wield tremendous resources in comparison to individuals, and laws like McCain-Feingold, et al, attempted to prevent corruption in our political process from reoccuring (yes, reoccurring), as they were already being used in elections nationwide. The Dissent noted that some of the laws in question were specifically designed to stop the quid pro quo between the corporate and political communities which had corrupted the American political system and that "Corporate rights" to Free Speech in regards to electioneering are a concept which the Framers certainly did not intend (as the idea had only surfaced during the later portion of the 20th century) and, regardless, would not protect at the expense of the citizenry.

The court declined to determine if the technology (OnDemand services, aka the method of delivery) in question even applied--despite the fact that this was the main argument of the Plaintiff.

"On what we might call conventional television, advertising spots reach viewers who have chosen a channel or a program for reasons unrelated to the advertising. With video-on-demand, by contrast, the viewer selects a program after taking “a series of affirmative steps”: subscribing to cable; navigating through various menus; and selecting the program."

In considering this primarily as a Free Speech issue, the court applied specious logic. This is more a Free Press issue, and is akin to choosing to watch Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, any other program discussing political issues, or purchasing a newspaper and then reading an OpEd piece, etc, in that the Plaintiff wished to provide an editorial which, while political in nature, requires the viewer to choose to be exposed to the opinons presented. Since this type of programming is obviously protected, and since the FEC had STILL yet to offer instruction, the Plaintiff's case should have held no standing.

"In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that “Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 490 (2007) (WRTL) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us."

The problem with quoting WRTL is that just because Justice Scalia felt that, regarding Austin, "[i]n my view, it was wrongly decided," his personal viewpoint gives him NO authority to change or ignore the decision in this case. The Plaintiff expressly waived a facial challenge (to determine if the laws in question were unconstitutional in all regards), and only saught an as-applied ruling (to determine if the law applied in this case, under these circumstances). Though the rules of civil and criminal procedure prevent Judges from acting upon matters not brought before them (which, when a question is expressly waived, it is, de jure [as a matter of law], not brought before them), the five in assent took it upon themselves to strike down centuries of common law, statutes, and case law. This type of recklessness is pure activism.

The court has expressly allowed Non-Profit Corporations who draw funds not just from individuals, but directly from For-Profit Corporations (like Citizen's United) to freely influence our political process. They have also concluded that any corporation may act to influence elections, even going so far as declining to determine if the Corporation is owned in whole or part by foreign powers can be restricted from exerting direct influence over elections.

"Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established" or, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put it: "stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled."

Stare decisis is one of the foundations of Common Law as it applies to the holding of a case decided by judges and justices. It simply means that once something is settled, that it cannot be undone. This is to ensure that law is applied in a predictable manner and to protect against constant reinterpreation and manipulation of the law, to include the Constitution of the United States. Stare decisis is an integral part of the Rule of Law, without which our society's ability to function will be severely hampered.

The Court used obiter dictum ("an incidental and collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge but is not binding") as ratio decidendi (the rationale, or "the reason," behind the decision) and has essentially stated that unless a verdict is reached unanimously, it need not be adhered to. In this case, the court held that a dissenting opinon was more valid than a majority opinion in regards to the long-standing precendents governing this case. I wonder if they meant this to apply vertically and horizontally throughout the legal system, or if this is simply the Court usurping authority for itself in violation of their Oath of Office and constitionally mandated Separation of Powers.

Think about it. Not only can corporations now freely "invest" in elections, but Judges throughout the system may choose to ignore any prior decision, effectively destroying jurisprudence constante forever. It no longer matters what a law says, or even what the Supreme Court has said regarding a matter, it only matters what the Judge before you says. What will be next? If a single legislator votes against a law, it not need not be enforced by the Executive or the courts? Will the application of law now be solely determined by whomever holds the reigns of political power?After that, will party membership determine how laws are applied?

In this case, the Supremes not only struck down the laws passed by the Congress and various state legislatures, they struck down centuries of case law, to include decisions already decided by the Court, itself. The Court has smashed stare decisis with jurisprudence constante then covered them in the Rule of Law and set the whole thing on fire using the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices (and all Federal Judges) are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their office.

The First is the Constitutional Oath, taken by all federal employees, other than the President:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The five members of the court who issued this ruling did not defend the Constitution of the United States, they violated due process and the Seventh Amendment. They were derelict in discharge of the duties of their office.

They must also swear to the Judicial Oath before taking the bench.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [office] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

The five members of the court who issued this ruling did not administer justice, did not do equal right to the poor, but favored the rich, and neither faithfully nor impartially performed their duties. They, in fact, ignored the Constitution, their own established procedures in regards to due process, and the laws of the United States.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

In throwing out their own decisions, not based on the Rules of any Law or within the established procedures of the entire Federal Court system, but based on arbitrary whimsy regarding the personhood of the corporation in contrast to common law verdicts stretching back centuries, the court violated the Seventh Amendment rights of the People of the United States through their representative, the Federal Election Commission.

Five members of the highest Court (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kenedy, and Alito) have conspired to voilate their Oaths of Office, have acted in manner which will provide aid and comfort to our enemies and endanger the security of the nation and the public at large, and have violated the Civil Rights of the People of the United States. It is for these reasons that the House of Representatives should begin a formal impeachment investigation against each of them, immediately.