The Administration and Congressional leaders insist jobs are a priority, right? And most would acknowledge that the private sector has at least a role to play in creating jobs.

Do they not recognize that maligning the private sector fosters uncertainty, that attacking the motives of corporations creates a business climate that discourages investment? Demonizing employers does not help create jobs.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts after reading the New York Times’ coverage of the latest development on H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, to limit political speech by disfavored groups. From the story, “Senate Democrats Call on House to Support DISCLOSE Bill,” based on a letter written by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee:

“The Roberts Court and its activist majority overturned decades of law and precedent and gave corporations and other special interests unprecedented new power to influence America’s elections,” Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer continued. “Additionally, the activist decision opened the door to foreign-controlled corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on American political campaigns.”

The senators added, “We fully agree that Congress must take a stand against this naked power grab sanctioned by the Roberts Court and pass the DISCLOSE act.” And they wrote, “We commit to working tirelessly for Senate consideration of the House-passed bill so it can be signed by the president in time to take effect for the 2010 elections.”

The assertions about foreign corporations spending unlimited amounts are not just inflammatory, they are untrue, just as they were when the President made them in the State of the Union address in January. Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explained:

The president also stated, again misleadingly, that the decision would open the door for foreign corporations to spend unlimited sums in American elections. In fact, another provision of federal law, not at issue in the case, already prohibits any foreign national, including foreign corporations, from spending money in any federal campaign. FEC regulations, which have the force of law, further prohibit any foreign national from playing any role in the political spending decisions of any U.S. corporation, political action committee, or association. And the Court specifically stated that Citizens United was not addressing these laws at all. So while some states may tweak their state rules in the wake of Citizens United to limit the ability of U.S. incorporated and head-quartered subsidiaries of foreign corporations to spend money in campaigns, the “foreign corporation” bogeyman is little more than leftist demagoguery.

Foreign-owned corporations create millions of jobs in the United States. Instead of accusing them of trying to undermine U.S. democracy, it would be better to say, “Thank you.”

If jobs are a priority, that is.

Previous NAM communications …

• Joint letter from 232 trade associations and activist groups, including the NAM, objecting to H.R. 5175, the anti-speech DISCLOSE Act.
• NAM Key Vote letter.
• NAM news release.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Castle (D-DE) start their Washington Post op-ed today on the DISCLOSE Act by misrepresenting the facts and go from there:

On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court threw out 100 years of established law and legal precedent that protected the integrity of our political process against direct campaign expenditures by big-money special interests.

That’s not true. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Alt and Hans von Spakovsky, a former FEC commissioner, have already debunked the spurious claim of 100 years of precedent. From “The Liberal Mythology of an ‘Activist’ Court: Citizens United and Ledbetter“:

The claims by some, including President Obama, that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision overturned 100 years of precedent are simply untrue. While Congress implemented a statutory ban on direct corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907, a ban that Citizens United did not disturb, it did not impose a ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions until 1947 when it passed the Labor Management Relations Act. Congress overrode President Truman’s veto of the Act even though he “warned that the expenditure ban was a ‘dangerous intrusion on free speech.’” The constitutionality of such a ban was not reviewed by the Supreme Court for almost three decades after its passage, although the Court expressed its doubts about the act in more than one case.

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith has also addressed the anti-speech talking point in The American Spectator:

[One] would never guess from the left’s hysteria that even prior to Citizens United, 28 states, representing roughly 60 percent of the U.S. population, already allowed corporations and unions to make expenditures promoting or opposing candidates for office in state elections; in 26 states, such corporate and union expenditures were unlimited. Moreover, while the first bans on corporate spending were enacted more than a century ago, prior to the 1990 Austin decision, the Supreme Court had never upheld a ban, or even a limitation, on independent expenditures supporting or opposing a political candidate. It was the misleading contention that the decision overturned “100 years of law and precedent,” that appears to have evoked Justice Alito’s “not true” response to the president’s State of the Union comments.

Today’s Washington Post op-ed from the two sponsors of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, is headlined, “The Disclose Act is a matter of campaign honesty.” Honest debates should start with honest descriptions of the facts.

On the Mark Levin radio program last evening and then in today’s Washington Post, David Bossie of Citizens United drew attention to the Supreme Court’s March, 2009, oral arguments in Citizens United v. FEC. In response to questioning from the justices, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart said that federal law, McCain-Feingold, allowed the government to limit or even ban books as well as electronic media. At that point, Bossie said he thought he had won his free speech case.

The Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial today, “A Free Speech Landmark,” also cited the exchange as a critical moment in the court’s consideratin. Below is the exchange, starting on page 21 of the transcript.

But first, another important point made clearly by Ilya Somin at the legal blog, Volokh.com: “People Organized as Corporations are People Too.”

Now the transcript:

JUSTICE ALITO: Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth? What’s your answer to Mr. Olson’s point that there isn’t any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video demand and providing access on the Internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?
MR. STEWART: I think the — the Constitution would have permitted Congress to apply the electioneering communication restrictions to the extent that they were otherwise constitutional under Wisconsin Right to Life. Those could have been applied to additional media as well. And it’s worth remembering that the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act restrictions on corporate electioneering which have been limited by this Court’s decisions to express advocacy -
JUSTICE ALITO: That’s pretty incredible. You think that if — if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?

(continue reading…)

President Obama travels to Lorain County, Ohio, today for a “White House to Main Street” event promoting jobs creation in a hard-hit corner of industrial America.

Unless the federal government intends to replace the private sector entirely as a source of capital for manufacturers, the President will talk about stimulating private investment by corporations. Businesses will be — or should be — welcomed as the source of wealth and employment.

Yet the day before the President’s trip, he reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC by saying this:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

Big business, those powerful forces of evil, wants to oppress everyday Americans.

Now invest!

From FoxNews, “Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns“:

In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision 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.

As an advocacy organization, the National Association of Manufacturers believes the right to advocate is protected by the First Amendment. As Justice Stevens wrote in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in thepolitical speech context, the Government may impose restrictions oncertain disfavored speakers.

 The full opinion is here.

Critics of free speech rights were the quickest to respond to today’s opinion.

• Common Cause, “Supreme Court Decision Creates Political Crisis“
• Ralph Nader, a statement, “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process.”
• Nick Nyhart, Public Campaign, Supreme Court Sides with Wall Street

UPDATE (11:15 a.m.): From CQ Politics:

Free speech and anti-regulation groups such as the Center for Competitive Politics applauded the Supreme Court’s decision.

“This is not a radical decision because more than half of the states already have these provisions allowing unions and corporations to spend their general treasury funds on direct advocacy,” said Jeff Patch, the organization’s communications director. “There are not any cases of corruption due to independent expenditures that anyone can point to.”

UPDATE (11:40 a.m.): From Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a statement from its executive director, Melanie Sloan:

This is a disaster for regulation of campaign spending. It means ads advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates will no longer be put out just by candidates and parties, but will now also come from corporations and unions.

In other words, this is a disaster for regulation of free speech. We give Sloan credit for including unions in the groups at which she’s dismayed; the news coverage concentrates on the corporate side of the equation.

UPDATE (1 p.m.): Here’s the docket for the case. That’s the longest list of amicus briefs we’ve ever seen.