One year ago today the US Supreme Court ruled five to four in a case brought by a group calling themselves Citizens United. The case was originally brought because a negative biopic full length feature film portraying Hillary Clinton in an unfavorable light was ruled a political ad by the Federal Election Commission.
The case was originally intended in the lower courts to simply rule as to that the film was not in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign reform act which prohibited such a political advertisement within 30 days of the 2008 primary election. Michael More was prohibited from screening Fahrenheit 9/11 prior to the election in 2004. In fact, Citizens United filed with the FEC to ban even the advertisement of the Michael Moore film 60 days before an election.
As I said, the argument was originally just that the film was "just a documentary" and did not fall under the definition of political speech as defined by McCain-Feingold.
The court ruled two surprises.
One- Against the plaintiff stating that the film was most certainly political speech.
Two - That since it was political speech then it was protected by the first amendment and superseded McCain Feingold.
The result of this ruling was the shot heard round the world in political circles. Under the new Supreme Court Ruling the Bipartisan Campaign Reform act of 2002 ( McCain Feingold. ) is essentially gutted and corporations and unions may use their general treasury funds to make an "electioneering communication" defined as speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.
What has that to do with anything that concerns me you may ask ?
Well, friends, As usual it is mostly about me. I am an active Alabama Education Member. Many Riley Republicans early in the race dubbed me the offensive RINO term. Republican In Name Only. I personally have settled on the more palatable Republicrat, or even better the "Bentley Republican". - A fiscal conservative who doesn't really buy into the idea that we have to bail out bankers and insurance salesmen on the backs of the poor and the jobless.
Thus so, I rise to defend our teachers.
When our New Alabama Legislature took up the special session ethics law I sent letters and emails to members of my party asking them to think long and hard about making illegal union dues collection that were used for political purposes, arguing that the issue of union dues collected by payroll deduction had been settled in the courts many years ago and now the activities of unions on the political stage was clearly protected by 130 S.Ct. 876 . One Senator responded, "Yes the bill is worded poorly but amendments are discouraged".
So it seems that under McCain-Feingold some AEA activities were questionable and probably could have been challenged in court rather than on the Alabama House and Senate floor, Especially A-Vote. The heavily partisan AEA-PAC. However, under the 2009 Supreme Court ruling such political activities are now clearly legal.
Our new and light green Republican Alabama Legislature has been pressured into passing a law that seems in violation of the most recent decisions of the highest court in the land.
Even a backwoods Russellville lawyer should be able to point out to the court that the intent of the law is to circumnavigate a higher court decision.
The case was originally intended in the lower courts to simply rule as to that the film was not in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign reform act which prohibited such a political advertisement within 30 days of the 2008 primary election. Michael More was prohibited from screening Fahrenheit 9/11 prior to the election in 2004. In fact, Citizens United filed with the FEC to ban even the advertisement of the Michael Moore film 60 days before an election.
As I said, the argument was originally just that the film was "just a documentary" and did not fall under the definition of political speech as defined by McCain-Feingold.
The court ruled two surprises.
One- Against the plaintiff stating that the film was most certainly political speech.
Two - That since it was political speech then it was protected by the first amendment and superseded McCain Feingold.
The result of this ruling was the shot heard round the world in political circles. Under the new Supreme Court Ruling the Bipartisan Campaign Reform act of 2002 ( McCain Feingold. ) is essentially gutted and corporations and unions may use their general treasury funds to make an "electioneering communication" defined as speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.
What has that to do with anything that concerns me you may ask ?
Well, friends, As usual it is mostly about me. I am an active Alabama Education Member. Many Riley Republicans early in the race dubbed me the offensive RINO term. Republican In Name Only. I personally have settled on the more palatable Republicrat, or even better the "Bentley Republican". - A fiscal conservative who doesn't really buy into the idea that we have to bail out bankers and insurance salesmen on the backs of the poor and the jobless.
Thus so, I rise to defend our teachers.
When our New Alabama Legislature took up the special session ethics law I sent letters and emails to members of my party asking them to think long and hard about making illegal union dues collection that were used for political purposes, arguing that the issue of union dues collected by payroll deduction had been settled in the courts many years ago and now the activities of unions on the political stage was clearly protected by 130 S.Ct. 876 . One Senator responded, "Yes the bill is worded poorly but amendments are discouraged".
So it seems that under McCain-Feingold some AEA activities were questionable and probably could have been challenged in court rather than on the Alabama House and Senate floor, Especially A-Vote. The heavily partisan AEA-PAC. However, under the 2009 Supreme Court ruling such political activities are now clearly legal.
Our new and light green Republican Alabama Legislature has been pressured into passing a law that seems in violation of the most recent decisions of the highest court in the land.
Even a backwoods Russellville lawyer should be able to point out to the court that the intent of the law is to circumnavigate a higher court decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment