Citizens United v FEC: Campaign Finance
Justice Stevens' 90-page dissent attacked the majority on every front:
On corruption: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Stevens argued corruption includes buying access and influence -- not just explicit bribes. He warned that unlimited corporate spending would create dependence between politicians and their biggest funders.
On corporate speech: Stevens drew a sharp line between natural persons and legal entities. Corporations don't vote, don't serve in the military, and can be combatant-controlled by foreign interests. The Framers, Stevens wrote, never intended the First Amendment to protect a corporation's right to flood elections with money.
On stare decisis: Stevens noted that the only thing that changed between McConnell (2003) and Citizens United (2010) was the composition of the Court -- not the law, not the facts, not the constitutional text. He accused the majority of judicial activism.
The accountability gap: The majority assumed disclosure would solve the problem -- voters would know who spent the money. Stevens predicted (correctly) that donors would find ways to hide their identities, creating the dark money system we see today.
Citizens United v FEC: Campaign Finance
Justice Stevens' 90-page dissent attacked the majority on every front:
On corruption: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Stevens argued corruption includes buying access and influence -- not just explicit bribes. He warned that unlimited corporate spending would create dependence between politicians and their biggest funders.
On corporate speech: Stevens drew a sharp line between natural persons and legal entities. Corporations don't vote, don't serve in the military, and can be combatant-controlled by foreign interests. The Framers, Stevens wrote, never intended the First Amendment to protect a corporation's right to flood elections with money.
On stare decisis: Stevens noted that the only thing that changed between McConnell (2003) and Citizens United (2010) was the composition of the Court -- not the law, not the facts, not the constitutional text. He accused the majority of judicial activism.
The accountability gap: The majority assumed disclosure would solve the problem -- voters would know who spent the money. Stevens predicted (correctly) that donors would find ways to hide their identities, creating the dark money system we see today.
Citizens United v FEC: Campaign Finance
Justice Stevens' 90-page dissent attacked the majority on every front:
On corruption: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Stevens argued corruption includes buying access and influence -- not just explicit bribes. He warned that unlimited corporate spending would create dependence between politicians and their biggest funders.
On corporate speech: Stevens drew a sharp line between natural persons and legal entities. Corporations don't vote, don't serve in the military, and can be combatant-controlled by foreign interests. The Framers, Stevens wrote, never intended the First Amendment to protect a corporation's right to flood elections with money.
On stare decisis: Stevens noted that the only thing that changed between McConnell (2003) and Citizens United (2010) was the composition of the Court -- not the law, not the facts, not the constitutional text. He accused the majority of judicial activism.
The accountability gap: The majority assumed disclosure would solve the problem -- voters would know who spent the money. Stevens predicted (correctly) that donors would find ways to hide their identities, creating the dark money system we see today.