Implications of Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United vs. FEC

It has certainly been a bad week for the Obama administration. On Tuesday, the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sent a powerful message to Washington D.C. by electing conservative republican Scott Brown to the senate seat formerly held by senator Ted Kennedy. And then there was the stunning decision handed down by the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The case revolved around a movie on demand that Citizen's United offered as Hillary Clinton was trying to win the democratic nomination for president. It was a scathingly critical documentary. Citizen's United was not given a "media exemption" and the release was blocked by the Federal Elections Commission under campaign finance laws, specifically the McCain-Fiengold law.

David Fossey of Citizen's United was left with no option but to sue the FEC. David won with Thursday's decision. Although it was originally brought as a narrow issue regarding only the release of the video on demand offering from Citizen's United, the winning argument came from the lawyers for the FEC. Justice Samuel Alito asked the lawyer for the FEC "if the documentary was in book form, would the FEC still have banned it?" Of course, the lawyer said yes, that the FEC had that discretion to ban it even if it were in book form. This did not sit well with the conservatives on the court regarding the first amendment and free speech.

The majority opinion, written by justice Kennedy and joined by Cheif Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito is a new treatment for corporate speech and spending. Kennedy worte, "By suppresing the speech of manifold corporations, both for profit and non-profit, the government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests".

While the left is furiously scrambling to draft legislation that would curtail this by placing limits on corporations who hold federal contracts, this November's elections will possibly be quite different from before. The gloves are off now. No longer are businesses handicapped against expressing opinions that favor them.

But what is good for business causes profits to increase. As business profits increase, businesses grow. As businesses grow, they will need to hire more employees. In essence, what is good for business is good for the economy and what is good for the economy is good for jobs. And jobs are what is foremost in the minds of the people these days. So as distasteful as the left finds this decision to be, the people stand to be the biggest winners here. No longer are campaign messages the sole property of the far left Political Action Committees (PACS) who are well funded by leftists like billionaire George Soros.


No longer is prosperity a victim of the far left agenda. No longer is prosperity a victim of environmental extremists. Now, the playing field has finally been leveled. Thank God!