案名：Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
由於一部強烈抨擊時任紐約州參議員希拉蕊．柯林頓的紀錄片被禁止播送，保守派組
織「Citizens United」控訴聯邦選舉委員會據以限制緣由、即通稱馬侃－范戈德法案
（由共和黨籍亞利桑那州參議員馬侃、民主黨籍威斯康辛州參議員范戈德聯合提出）
的「兩黨競選改革法案」（Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act）違憲，最高法院於昨
日遞交判決。
最高法院大法官以五對四，推翻馬侃－范戈德法案中全部或一部關鍵內容；由安東尼
．甘迺迪法官執筆的多數意見認為，法案中對於營利機構與非營利機構的定義模糊不
清、所維護法意不明，有箝制言論自由嫌疑，因此解除該法案內公司與工會不得在選
前三十日內動用資金製作與播送支持或反對特定候選人廣告的政府限制，但候選人仍
應說明非自身出資的廣告資金來源。反對意見由保羅．史蒂文斯大法官執筆，不認為
企業意見可與個人意見表達自由類比。
批評者認為，這份判決將為大公司的競選贊助大開方便之門，並且將嚴重衝擊2010期
中國會選舉與2012年大選。一般咸信，這個判決對共和黨陣營有利。
歐巴馬總統已公開批判這項判決
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns
FOXNews.com
In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups
like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political
campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to
undercut the decision.
In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups
like corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political
campaigns, prompting the White House to pledge "forceful" action to
undercut the decision.
In a written statement, President Obama said the high court had "given a
green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics."
He called it a "major victory" for Wall Street, health insurance companies
and other interests which would diminish the influence of Americans who
give small donations. Obama pledged to "work immediately" with Congress to
develop a "forceful response."
"The public interest requires nothing less," Obama said.
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.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that
there is "no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate
independent expenditures."
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech
context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored
speakers," he wrote. "The government may regulate corporate speech through
disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that
speech altogether."
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my
judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others.
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between
corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous
contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of
it," he added.
The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the
country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also
impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, whose name bears the law that was
upended Thursday, said he hadn't read the decision but thought that it was
headed that way when he listened to arguments presented last fall. McCain
said he does not think it completely repudiates the law he wrote with
Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Feingold issued a statement that notes the decision does not overturn the
ban on soft money donations to political parties, which can then
distribute cash to candidates.
"But this decision was a terrible mistake," he said. "This court has just
upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law
designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay
dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned
out by corporate spending in our federal elections."
The case involves the film by conservative group Citizens United, which
criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the
2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign.
Citizens United planned to air ads promoting its distribution through
cable television video-on-demand services. The FEC said the film amounted
to a campaign ad and that Citizens United, an incorporated entity that
takes corporate money, could only use limited, disclosed contributions
from individuals to promote and broadcast it.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and
other groups sided with Citizens United in calling a loosening of
restrictions.
"This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First
Amendment rights of all Americans," said Citizens United President David
Bossie. "The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and
conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched
establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to
serve."
In concluding his opinion, Kennedy drew a parallel with concern raised
over a movie that many consider a classic, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Kennedy wrote that some government officials tried to discourage the
film's distribution. He said people will naturally disagree with the
content and meaning of Hillary: The Movie, but "those choices and
assessments, however, are not for the government to make."
But watchdog groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen called the ruling
a blow to democracy. Public Citizen said it is "going to do everything we
can to mitigate the damage from today's decision, and to overturn this
misguided ruling."
Feingold said he too is working on new legislation to restore restraints
on corporate participation.
Fox News' Lee Ross and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/
supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.32.131.92
※ 編輯: ncyc 來自: 114.32.131.92 (01/22 18:31)