Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Supreme Court has overturned a rule that limited corporations from paying for candidates campaign ads.

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal political campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

***

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

So basically unions and corporations will be flooding our airwaves with campaign ads without limits. As can be seen in the Massachusetts special election, unions, especially the SEIU, spent enormous amounts of money in ads for their candidate, Martha Coakley.

It would not surprise me one bit if the 2010 election cycle is dominated by union and corporate advertisements promoting Democrats, who otherwise are in serious trouble for their support of Obamacare, Cap and Tax(trade), and Pork(stimulus)Fest. Will increased corporate and union ad spending save the Democrats this year? That remains to be seen. But this will certainly shape the election.

UPDATE (lawhawk):
Here's a copy of the decision, which also overturns several provisions of the odious McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law. Restricting political speech isn't healthy, and that ultimately is what McCain Feingold does.

The Modern Massachusetts Miracle?

Massachusetts has resoundingly sent a message to Democrats by electing a Republican to the US Senate for the first time since 1972. Republican State Senator Scott Brown won the election in resounding fashion, which would explain why Democrats were already making all manner of excuses even before voters went to the polls. As of this writing, the lead was 52.4 to 46.6 and while Boston broke hard for Coakley, most of the state went for Brown.

Well, pundits and political insiders re going to have plenty of time to spend on recriminations in coming weeks, and Republicans are going to have to figure out what to do with the seat that they've just won.

Democrats are going to have to figure out what to do with their agenda for the next year as they will no longer have a filibuster proof majority. Mind you that Presidents have been able to move their agendas along without such majorities (it's the exception rather than a rule in US politics to have filibuster proof majorities), so President Obama is going to have to take a hard look at his agenda and respond accordingly.

The Democrats are also going to take a hard look at what to do with their health care proposals - whether they're going to try and pass something before Brown can take office, or whether they'll curtail their grandiose proposals to get something passed that might be more acceptable to a wider selection of the public. This most certainly throws a monkey wrench in the Democrats' political agenda.

Republicans are going to have to learn the right lessons from this election - this could be seen as a referendum on the Democrats' agenda nationally, or it could be the result of a poor Democrat candidate running an awful campaign and the Republican campaign ran as good a campaign as one could possibly expect. Republicans can't and shouldn't take anything for granted as far as elections in November are concerned but still build on this election; nothing breeds success like success, but they can't assume that close races will break in their favor unless they run good candidates who run good campaigns.

Massachusetts Goes To The Polls Tomorrow

Massachusetts goes to the poll tomorrow to determine who will fill the seat formerly held by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Democrat Martha Coakley is hoping to retain the seat for Democrats, while Scott Brown has managed to not only hold his advantage but he's managed to take a lead in the final polling before the election tomorrow.

Nate Silver has the Senate race leaning to Brown with just hours to go before the polls open.

The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley. We have traditionally categorized races in which one side has between a 60 and 80 percent chance of winning as "leaning" toward that candidate, and so that is how we categorize this race now: Lean GOP.

The anger and populist argument isn't sufficient to win over a state like Massachusetts where the state is overwhelming Democrat. Coakley has run an awful campaign and even the last minute trip by President Obama isn't likely to overcome the mess left by the State Democratic party who figured that things would be a cakewalk.

I've read some folks saying that this is a referendum on the health care plan, which would be quite something if the seat held by the former champion of such reform, Ted Kennedy goes to the candidate whose election would thwart a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and increase the chances that a health care deal doesn't get done. In fact, the Congressional Democrats are looking at ways to circumvent that particular outcome to pass health care reform even if Brown wins.

Yet, I think this is all going to boil down to a turnout-related outcome. If the weather cooperates, the Democrats may pull this out yet. If not, then the GOP may get it done.