For Immediate Release: July 31, 2009
Contact: Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, 212–998–6289
Susan Lehman, 212–998–6318
Media activists, journalists and bloggers urge the Supreme Court to uphold regulations on the flow of corporate money into federal elections
New York—Today, the Brennan Center for Justice – acting as counsel
for prominent media groups and professionals – submitted an amicus, or
friend of the court, brief in the case of Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission.
The Brennan Center’s amicus brief – filed on behalf of the Center for
Independent Media, blogger Zack Exley, the Editorial Board of political
blog Calitics.com, Laura McGann of the Washington Independent, and New
York technology and art center Eyebeam—demonstrates that current
restrictions on corporate expenditures sufficiently protects new media
journalists, bloggers and activists, as well as those who are part of
traditional media institutions.
“We are confident that the specific protections in the current law
properly balances the important first amendment concerns with the
laudable goal of controlling the flow of corporate money,” says the
Editorial Board of Calitics.com, an influential political blog.
The Center also urged the Court to rule on the case narrowly and not
overturn 60 years of precedent limiting corporate spending in elections.
”This moment in American history, when our economic and political order
continue to reel from unregulated corporate conduct, seems an odd time
to permit greater corporate influence over public life," says Monica
Youn, lead author of the brief and counsel at the Center.
“If the Court allows increased corporate political spending, it could
effectively end the promising 'small donor revolution’ that was sparked
during the 2008 election and involved increased public engagement on
the part of millions of Americans,” Youn continues.
In recent years, corporate spending reached record heights. Outside
groups – including 501(c) groups and so-called Section 527 groups—
spent well over $400 million in both the 2004 and 2008 elections.
The briefs were filed in response to the Supreme Court’s request for a
new round of arguments on the question of whether the Court should
overturn its landmark campaign finance rulings in two key cases on
regulating the role of corporate money in federal elections. An
adverse Court decision would roll back 60 years of decisions upholding
limits on corporate spending in elections. More than 22 amicus briefs
were filed.
These rulings provide the legal basis for the government’s regulation
of corporate treasury spending on advertisements in federal and state
elections. If the Court overturns these cases, nearly unlimited sums
corporate money would pour into federal elections and in elections in
22 states. A decision to overrule Austin or McConnell would open the
floodgates of corporate money into federal elections; it would also end
restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections that, in their
earliest incarnation, date back to the Tillman Act which was enacted at
the close of the Gilded Age in 1907.
For more information or to set up an interview with Monica Youn, please contact Jeanine Plant-Chirlin at 212–998–6289 or at jeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu