Citizens United v. FEC: The constitutional right that big corporations should have but do not want

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 639-661

  Epstein, Richard A ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80155178873     PISSN: 01934872     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
2. Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81
3. (codified in scattered sections of 2, 8, 18, 28, 36, and 47 U. S. C.).
4. Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 886.
5. See, e.g., Arnold King, The Financial Crisis: Moral Failure or Cognitive Failure? 33 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 507, 507-08 (2010);
6. Steven Moore & Tyler Grim, Straw Man Capitalism and a New Path to Prosperity, 33 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 475, 477 (2010).
7. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003).
8. Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990).
9. See 540 U. S. at 115.
10. For my critique, see Richard A. Epstein, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission: A Deadly Dose of Double Deference, 3 ELECTION L. J. 231 (2004).
11. See generally Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, in Front of a Nation, N. Y. TIMES, Jan. 29, 2010, at A12, available at http://www.nytimes. com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html.
12. See 2 U. S. C. § 434 (f) (3) (A) (i) (2006) (defining electioneering communication as "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which... refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office... made within 60 days before a general... election... or 30 days before a primary or preference election").
13. But see FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (excepting genuine issue advertisements from the BCRA's preelection blackout period).
14. U. S. CONST. amend. I.
15. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 347 (1995) ("When a law burdens core political speech, we apply 'exacting scrutiny', and we uphold the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.").
16. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-72 (1942).
17. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Sev. Comm'n, 447 U. S. 557, 557 (1980) (discussing the protection given to commercial speech by the Court).
18. See, e.g., Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268, 272 (4th Cir. 1967) ("[A]n injunction will not issue to restrain torts, such as defamation or harassment....").
19. See N. Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279-80 (1964) ("The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'....");
20. see also Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S, 46 (1988) (extending Sullivan to public figures).
21. See Alexander v. United States, 509 U. S. 544, 559 (1993).
22. See New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747 (1982).
23. See, e.g., Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 758 (1974) (rights of members of military);
24. Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548 (1973) (rights of federal government employees).
25. See Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 929-79 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
26. See Ronald Dworkin, The Decision that Threatens Democracy, N. Y. REV. BOOKS, May 13, 2010, at 63, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/ archives/2010/may/13/decision-threatens-democracy/.
27. See An Act to Prohibit White and Colored Persons from Attending the Same School, 1904 Ky. Acts 181, cited in Berea Coll. v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 59 (1908) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
28. See Berea Coll., 211 U. S. at 54.
29. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 552 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
30. Berea Coll., 211 U. S. at 54 (majority opinion).
31. See generally Richard A. Epstein, The Supreme Court 1987 Term-Foreword: Unconstitutional Conditions, State Power, and the Limits of Consent, 102 HARV. L. REV. 5 (1988).
32. See Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 949-50 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
33. See W. FLETCHER, CYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW OF CORPORATIONS § 2 (rev. ed. 2006).
34. Austin v. Mich. State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 665-66 (1990).
35. See 15 U. S. C. § 17 (2006) (creating safe harbors for labor unions and agricultural organizations).
36. See 45 U. S. C. § 151 (a) (2006).
37. See 29 U. S. C. §§ 151-169 (2006).
38. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam) (stating that restricting political expenditures "necessarily includes the quantity of expression").
39. 198 U. S. 45 (1905).
40. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U. S. 663, 669 (1991).
41. For a more general critique of the incidental damage rule, see Richard A. Epstein, Privacy, Publication, and the First Amendment: The Dangers of First Amendment Exceptionalism, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 1003, 1024-27 (2000).
42. See President Barack H. Obama, State of the Union Address (Jan. 27, 2010), in 156 CONG. REC. H414-06 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 2010).
43. Ronald Dworkin, The "Devastating" Decision, N. Y. REV. BOOKS, Feb. 25, 2010, at 65, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/ 2010/feb/25/the-devastatingdecision/. For Professor Dworkin's more detailed discussion of the Citizens United decision, see Dworkin, supra note 25.
44. Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 658 (1990).
45. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969).
46. See Austin, 494 U. S. at 660-61. For a relentless dissection of this decision
47. see Samuel Issacharoff, On Political Corruption, 124 HARV. L. REV. 118, 121-26 (2010)
48. Tillman Act of 1907, Pub. L. No. 59-36, 34 Stat. 864
49. (codified as amended at 2 U. S. C. § 441b (a) (2006)).
50. Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-101, § 304, § 313, 61 Stat. 136, 159 (superseded by Federal Election Campaign Act Amendment of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-283, § 112, § 321
51. Stat. 475, 490
52. (codified as amended at 2 U. S. C. § 441b (a) (2006))).
53. Hatch Act of 1939, Pub. L. No. 76-252, 53 Stat. 1147
54. (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U. S. C.).
55. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 95-96 (2003)
56. Fred S. McChesney, Rent Extraction and Rent Creation in the Economic Theory of Regulation, 16 J. LEGAL STUD. 101 (1987).
57. +The full list of Supplemental Amicus Briefs can be found at Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, SCOTUSBLOG. COM, http://www.scotusblog. com/casefiles/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2011).
58. See Ira Boudway, Target's Off-Target Campaign Contribution, BUSINESS WEEK (Aug. 5, 2010 5:00 PM), http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10-33/ b4191032682244.htm.
59. See Paul Schmelzer, MoveOn.org hits Target over gift to Emmer-backing PAC, (Aug. 2, 2010, 2:25 PM) MINN. INDEP. http://minnesotaindependent.com/62515/ moveon-org-hits-target-over-gift-to-emmer-backing-pac.
60. See John Mackey, Opinion, The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare, WALL ST. J., Aug. 12, at A15.
61. Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Dep't of Labor, Union Members-2010 (Jan. 21, 2011), http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.
62. See, e.g., Clay Barbour & Mary Spicuzza, Walker Takes Broad Swipe at Public Employee Unions, WIS. ST. J., Feb. 12, 2011, http://host.madison. com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article-c814c77a-3600-11e0-b9e0- 001cc4c03286.html.
63. Shalia Dewan & Steven Greenhouse, Unions Make State in Arkansas Race, N. Y. TIMES, June 6, 2010, at A22.
64. H. R. 1409, 111th Cong. (2009).
65. Andrew Pergam, Threats to AIG: We Will Get Your Children, NBCCONNECTICUT. COM (March 26, 2009, 10:44 AM), http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/AIG- Threats-We-will-get-your-children. html.