Have a SCOTUS New Year

The Supreme Court's expeditied decision of campaign finance reform may come as early as next week, just in time to possibly radically reshape the 2010 primaries and elections that follow.

But it is an old case that is puzzling court observers and consuming the political world: a pending decision on whether restrictions on corporate and labor union spending on political campaigns violate the First Amendment. It arose from a less significant question about whether a conservative group's financing of and distribution plans for a documentary -- "Hillary: The Movie," a scathing account of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential pursuit -- violated the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The court heard oral arguments on the original question in March 2009, but adjourned in June without a decision. Instead, the justices said they would consider the larger question of whether it is constitutional to ban corporations and labor unions from drawing funds from their general treasuries to support or oppose candidates.

Congress for decades has outlawed such expenditures, and 22 states have similar bans. Both sides agree that a ruling saying such restrictions are unconstitutional would mean a sea change in the way political campaigns are funded.

The court's decision to hear the larger question in September, in advance of its regular term, was seen as a possible attempt to expedite the ruling before the midterm primary season. But not much time is left; Illinois will hold elections on Feb. 2.

At the September arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the more conservative justices indicated deep skepticism about the constitutionality of the bans on corporate spending. But because of the circumspect court's private deliberations, it is hard to speculate about the cause for delay -- except that the justices are deeply divided.

One possibility is that a broad decision declaring the restrictions unconstitutional has drawn lengthy dissents from those in the minority, who have no incentive for rushing the ruling. But equally possible is a failure to find a majority for such clear guidance and a multitude of competing opinions in which a narrow majority agrees only on the outcome in this specific case.

The ruling could come by Tuesday.

In other words, if the SCOTUS strikes down the decades-old ban on corporations and labor unions directly funding candidates,  there would literally be nothing stopping big business from directly dropping millions on candidates it wanted to see elected.  Nothing stopping insurance companies, energy companies, banks, etc. from literally buying elections.

And depending on how far the ruling goes, it may remove any or all campaign finance reform laws as unconstitutional abridgment of free speech.  Whoever has the most money, wins.  It was mostly true before.  It will become ironclad as soon as Tuesday.

Worth thinking about.