To hear some commentators, the U.S. Supreme Court is about to gut restrictions on corporate and union spending to influence elections -- a move critics fear would upend a century-long effort to contain the power of big money to determine elections. Their proof is last week's argument in a case in which an overzealous Federal Election Commission blocked the showing on cable TV of an unflattering documentary about presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Several conservative justices were sympathetic to the view that corporations, like individuals, have 1st Amendment rights.
That's a provocative possibility, and it pits campaign reformers against free-speech advocates, two groups not accustomed to disagreeing. Yet alarms about what the court might do are overstated. It does seem poised to invalidate a well-intentioned provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law banning the broadcast close to an election of advertisements, funded by unions or corporations, that refer to a candidate for federal office. As we have observed before, that provision goes too far in stifling speech.
The justices also could overturn a 1990 decision allowing government to prohibit corporations from paying for ads endorsing or opposing candidates. That further step is unnecessary. But even if the court decided to take it, unions and corporations would be forbidden, as they have been for generations, from contributing directly to election campaigns. As the court has recognized, contributions create more of a risk of real and perceived corruption than independent expenditures expressing an opinion about an election.