Supreme Court

"The Court's ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy"

|


Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman has a great post up at National Review's Bench Memos blog explaining why today's Citizens United decision was such an important free speech victory:

The ruling represents a tremendous victory for free speech and a serious blow to proponents of campaign-finance "reform," who have roundly denounced the ruling and have all but predicted the downfall of the Republic as a result. But the reformers' rhetoric is just that; the Court's ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy….

When you hear reformers howl about the downfall of elections as a result of this ruling, consider that states like Missouri, Utah, and Virginia already allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political ads, and there's no evidence that these states' elections have been "corrupted" or "overwhelmed" by this additional political speech. And that is not surprising. After all, no matter how much money is spent to promote or oppose candidates, voters remain free to disagree with those views. And they often do, as well-financed but failed candidates Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, and, more recently, Jon Corzine can attest.

Read the whole thing here. And while you're at it, check out page 54 of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United, which favorably cites IJ's excellent friend of the court brief.