Supreme Court overturns Michigan campaign finance ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission this morning. To almost no one’s surprise, the court struck down Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 ruling that forbid corporations from spending money from their general treasury to support or oppose candidates during elections.

Though most of the ruling is a relatively simple 5-4 decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court’s four most conservative members (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito) in the majority and the four more liberal members (Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) in the minority, it becomes very complicated in regard to one section of the ruling. Howard Bashman breaks down the complexity of the ruling:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in full. Justice Clarence Thomas joined all of the opinion of the Court except for part IV. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined only part IV of the opinion of the Court.

In addition to the opinion of the Court, four other Justices wrote separately. The Chief Justice filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined in full and Justice Thomas joined in part. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. And Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

All of that adds up to a staggering 183 page ruling. The central holding is that corporations (and, presumably, unions) cannot be prohibited by law from spending their money on ads that explicitly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. Until now, they could only do so through a political action committee.

The result will likely be a shift in the kinds of ads you see during elections. Corporations can now take out ads directly targeting a candidate they oppose or endorsing a candidate they oppose, rather than having to use a PAC to produce “issue ads” that surreptitiously target a candidate but not directly by name.