In light of the long-overdue ruling by the Supreme Court to throw out the free-speech-killing and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold finance law (was there ever a more destructive, corrupting influence on elections ever?), it is a good time to revisit the active complaint to the Federal Elections Commission over Barack Obama’s campaign finances.

Back when Obama was running for President, I broke a number of campaign donation stories that should have blown the race wide open. The Obama campaign committed the most egregious violations of election contribution laws, and they were dismissed with a wave of the hand. Millions came in from foreign countries — which is illegal: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”

I broke the jaw-dropping story about how tens of thousands of dollars came in to the Obama campaign from a Hamas-controlled camp in Gaza. Al-Jazeera actually ran video of Obama phone banks in Gaza. One large contributor to the Obama campaign was Monir Edwan, who was listed on FEC documents as contributing to Obama from the city of Rafah in the state “GA.” If you were reading quickly, you might have thought it was just a contribution from Georgia. But there is no city of Rafah in the Peach State. Monir Edwan sent money to Obama from Rafah, Gaza.

(more…)

On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue.  First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power.  Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision.  So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?

It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all things corporate.  But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the same.  The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their opposition isn’t political in nature.  Neither is it based on the merits. Rather, it is philosophical.

(more…)

**Link Fixed**

Today the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.  This long overdue decision is a victory not only for Citizens United but also for the First Amendment.  The majority opinion clearly and decisively explained that “[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The case decided this morning revolves around the 2007 film Hillary the Movie.  The film, which took an in-depth and critical look at the career of Hillary Clinton, was set to appear on cable television via video on demand during the Democratic presidential primary season in 2008.  The broadcast was prohibited by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, because Citizens United was organized as a corporation and had accepted a small amount of contributions from corporations to finance the film.

The government walks down a very treacherous path when it attempts to regulate speech, whether on film, print, or television.  Previous case law including Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. FEC had created a regulatory scheme so complex one dare not speak without consulting a lawyer.  Even then, one should only consult an election lawyer with years of experience because the rules are so complex and precise.  As a lawyer you’d think I’d welcome the business, but not at the expense of the First Amendment. (more…)

Towards the end of the post on Wednesday in which I attempted an assessment of George W. Bush’s two terms as President, I took Bush to task for betraying his oath of office and signing McCain Feingold — a bill restricting freedom of speech that he rightly regarded as unconstitutional.

“It was,” I wrote,

President Bush’s hope and expectation that the Supreme Court would declare McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. Thanks to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which is now before the Supreme Court, his hopes may — as Bradley A. Smith suggests in the current issue of National Affairs — soon be vindicated. But nothing can excuse Bush’s failure as President to do what he knew to be his constitutional duty and veto the bill.

What I did not know on Monday, when I drafted that post, was that the Supreme Court would issue its decision one day after the anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration. I merely argued as follows: (more…)