Following an ACS event exploring the legal and political fallout of the Supreme Court's recent corporate campaign finance decision, constitutional law expert William P. Marshall talked with ACSblog about the ruling and the Roberts Court. Marshall, a law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law and member of the ACS Board of Directors, said the decision in Citizens Untied v. FEC shows that "although the Roberts Court is conservative politically, it indicates that it is not a conservative court, judicially."

"This is one of the more activist decisions we've seen in sometime," Marshall said. He noted that the decision, which said corporations, may spend freely on elections, "put in doubt over a hundred years of legislation dealing with the regulation of corporate activity in campaigns."

Marshall moderated a panel discussion, including Jan W. Baran, Laurence E. Gold, James S. Portnoy, Joseph E. Sandler and Monica Youn, at the National Press Club on Citizens United. Video of the discussion is here. Watch Marshall's interview with ACSblog below or download of podcast of it here.

A recent PBS "Bill Moyers Journal," episode focused on the fallout of the high court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, and especially how it could impact the election of judges. The Feb. 19 program revisits a 1999 "Frontline" program that investigated increasing concern about campaign contributions' impact on the judiciary and noted a recent comment from retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that the most disconcerting fallout of Citizens United may be its influence on judicial elections. The program also includes commentary from The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin, who said the decision, which held that corporations may spend freely on elections, could have a staggering impact on the courts in states where judges are elected.

Toobin maintains:

I think judicial elections are really the untold story of Citizens United, the untold implication. Because when the decision happened, a lot of people said, 'Okay. This means that Exxon will spend millions of dollars to defeat Barack Obama when he runs for re-election.' I don't think there's any chance of that at all. That's too high profile. There's too much money available from other sources in a presidential race. But judicial elections are really a national scandal that few people really know about. Because corporations in particular, and labor unions to a lesser extent, have such tremendous interest in who's on state supreme courts and even lower state courts that that's where they're going to put their money and their energy because they'll get better bang for their buck there.

Watch video of the program here or by clicking on the picture. 

On Feb. 24, ACS will host an event at the National Press Club further exploring the political and legal fallout from Citizens United. See here for information on the event. 

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is one the Court's most "polarizing," and could signal that Chief Justice John Roberts is not committed to forging unity on the Court with narrow opinions, maintains Jeffrey Rosen, a George Washington University law school professor and Legal Affairs Editor for The New Republic (TNR).

Rosen notes in a column for TNR that in 2006, Chief Justice Roberts said he wanted the justices to produce more unanimity in its decisions and, in particular, show "humility when dealing with the First Amendment." But in Citizens United, Rosen writes, the chief justice "deputized Anthony Kennedy to write one of his characteristically grandiose decisions, challenging the president and Congress at a moment of financial crisis when the influence of money in politics - Louis Brandeis called it ‘our financial oligarchy' - is the most pressing question of the day."

Rosen adds, "If Roberts continues this approach, the Supreme Court may find itself on a collision course with the Obama administration - precipitating the first full-throttle confrontation between an economically progressive president and a narrow majority of conservative judicial activists since the New Deal."

Although Rosen writes that he and others, including some of Roberts' colleagues on the high court, initially gave Roberts the "benefit of the doubt" hoping that he would put the "bipartisan legitimacy of the Court above his own ideological agenda," that seemingly widespread benefit started to erode in 2007.

In summer 2007, Rosen asked Justice John Paul Stevens whether Roberts would succeed in leading the Court down a more conciliatory path. "I don't think so," Stevens said. "I just think it takes nine people to do that. I think maybe the first few months we all leaned over backward to try to avoid writing separately."

Large swaths of the American population oppose the Supreme Court's recent ruling on corporate campaign spending, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent ‘strongly' opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits," The Washington Post reported.

The newspaper reported that the polling also revealed "little difference of opinion on the issue among" Democrats and Republicans and that it suggested "a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision."

Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, noted that the survey also revealed that even some supporters of the Tea Party movement, which rails against the federal government, oppose the outcome in Citizens United.

"Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement," Langer wrote, "73 percent oppose the high court's rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strong with the Tea Party's position on the issues - 14 percent of all adults - fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case."

Langer's post includes the entire polling data here.

The 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission found that corporations have free speech rights to spend on campaigns, overturning decades of precedent upholding regulations on corporate campaign financing.

The Post noted that Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen are working on legislation addressing the ruling in Citizens United. In response to the new poll, Sen. Schumer, said, "If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interest in our politics."

ACS will host a panel discussion on Feb. 24 at the National Press Club on the implications of the ruling, including how it may impact the midterm elections. The panel discussion will include Jan W. Baran, a nationally recognized campaign and elections law attorney, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Citizens United arguing in support of corporations' free speech rights to spend on campaigns, and Joseph Sandler, a former general counsel for the Democratic National Committee, and also a campaign finance law expert. Following the ruling, Sandler told USA Today that it will likely make it a tougher challenge for incumbents seeking reelection.

See here for more information about the ACS event, "Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, and the Road Ahead." Check here for additional expert commentary on the case from ACSblog. 

The Senate Committee on Rules & Administration considered ways to counter the Supreme Court's Jan. 21 decision that limited Congress' ability to regulate corporate campaign spending. During yesterday's hearing, called "Corporate America vs. The Voter," Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken testified that the Supreme Court "has gradually dismantled key campaign-finance provisions that were designed to protect our democratic system from the damaging effects of money and undue influence." Gerken, a frequent ACS participant, told the Senate Committee that even after the high court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, there remained avenues "for congressional action." Professor Gerken urged new legislation to "strengthen disclaimer and disclosure rules for corporations' independent expenditures," for regulation to "ensure that shareholders exert meaningful control over corporate spending," and for Congress to "take steps to protect U.S. elections from foreign influence." Gerken's prepared testimony is available here.