First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
print this   Print

Alito objected to Obama's history claim

By The Associated Press
02.08.10

WASHINGTON — Still wonder exactly why Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "not true" during President Barack Obama's State of the Union address? He objected to the president's saying the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC "reversed a century of law."

The president touched off a controversy when he broke with tradition — and decorum, his critics said — by criticizing the Court's recent campaign-finance decision in his speech with six justices in attendance and bound by their own tradition of not reacting to what is said. (Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere.)

"With all due deference to the separation of powers," Obama said, "the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

It seems clear from Alito's questioning when the Court heard arguments in the case that he was taking issue with the president's assertion that the Court had reversed 100 years of law, rather than with Obama's reference to foreign influence, which also has generated legal debate.

At the September arguments, Alito suggested to attorney Seth Waxman that 20 years was the appropriate time frame, encompassing two high court decisions that upheld limits on corporate spending — as opposed to contributions to candidates — in campaigns.

"Mr. Waxman, all of this talk about 100 years and 50 years is perplexing," Alito said then. "It sounds like the sort of sound bites that you hear on TV. The fact of the matter is that the only cases that are being, that may possibly be reconsidered, are McConnell and Austin. And they don't go back 50 years, and they don't go back 100 years."

In the end, the Court left untouched a 1907 law that bans contributions by corporations to candidates. But in overruling those two decisions, McConnell v. FEC and Austin v. Michigan, the Court did strike down limits on corporations in a law that had been in place since 1947.

News organizations attempting to convey the sweep of the ruling without ignoring these distinctions said the Court's opinion represented a sharp turn away from the a century-long trend toward greater regulation of corporate contributions.


Previous
Alito shakes head as Obama slams Citizens United
Supreme Court justice appears to mouth words 'not true' during State of the Union speech when president says corporations can now 'spend without limit in our elections.' 01.28.10

Related

A changed legal landscape in campaign finance

By David L. Hudson Jr. Justice Kennedy notes that, historically, direct corporate contributions to candidates have been restricted much more than corporate spending on behalf of candidates. 01.21.10

Obama lashes out at high court over campaign finance

Democrats trying to devise new restraints on corporate election spending in wake of Citizens United ruling. 01.25.10

Justice Thomas defends Citizens United ruling
Supreme Court jurist also says some criticisms of the high court 'border on being irresponsible.' 02.05.10

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.



Last system update: Tuesday, February 9, 2010 | 05:49:43
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
Columnists
Experts
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links