This is important...

BANNING BOOKS?
By BRADLEY A. SMITH

THE Supreme Court seems poised to reshape cam paign-finance law, affirm ing fundamental First Amendment rights by overturning restrictions on corporate political speech when it rehears Citizens United v. FEC next Tuesday.
At issue is whether the government can ban distribution of a political documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," produced by Citizens United, a conservative group that received some corporate funding to make the film.
The government argues that it can -- relying on a 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that upheld a state law banning corporate political spending, and McConnell v. FEC, the 2003 case that upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
In fact, at a remarkable oral argument in March, the government claimed that Austin and McConnell give it the authority to ban books con- taining even one line of ad- vocacy for or against a poli- tical candidate, if (like most books) they produced or distributed by a corporation.
In June, the high court announced that instead of deciding the narrower issue of "Hillary: The Movie," it would rehear the case to consider overruling Austin and McConnell.
In anticipation of the reargument, groups that support onerous campaign-finance restrictions have launched a series of hyperbolic attacks on corporate political speech. In a typical outburst, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 claims that if Austin is overruled, "Banks like Citigroup, investment firms like Merrill Lynch, insurance companies like AIG and corporations like General Motors will be free to spend hundreds of millions," and will "drown out the voices of average Americans."
Nonsense. In 2002, the last election cycle in which soft money contributions from corporations were allowed in federal races, the largest corporate donor spent only $9.3 million. Fewer than 10 corporations spent as much as $2.5 million. (Surprisingly to some, the three largest corporate donors gave all of their contributions to Democrats.) None were banks, investment firms or insurance companies. The overwhelming majority of some $2 billion in political spending came from individuals.
The evidence is even more convincing in the states.
Today, 26 states allow unlimited corporate electioneering in state races -- independent ads advocating for or against candidates. Are these 26 states hopelessly lost in a cesspool of corporate influence? Certainly not.
Furthermore, 28 states allow direct contributions from corporations to candidates -- in seven states, such contributions are unlimited. (New Mexico recently passed limits that haven't yet gone into effect; Nebraska has no limit except candidates may not accept over 40 percent of their funds from businesses or other groups.)
Yet states like Utah and Virginia, with no limits, are consistently ranked among the best governed in the nation.
Those who support restrictions on speech bear the burden of proof to show that unfettered speech by corporations corrodes democracy. That is clearly not the case in the states that already allow corporations to speak in elections. In fact, the opposite is true -- corporate (and union) political speech enriches debate and increases voter knowledge.
As the Center for Competitive Politics noted in our friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court in Citizens United, prior to the 1930s, courts routinely struck down economic regulation on constitutional grounds.
However, in United States v. Carolene Products Co., a 1938 case, the high court established a core constitutional principle: Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate the economy -- but only so long as all Americans, including corporate shareholders, have robust political rights allowing them to defend their economic interests in the political process.
Silencing corporate speech -- that is, the speech of millions of Americans who have pensions, college savings accounts, or other investments in corporate stocks -- is not compatible with Carolene Products' assurance that an open political process will allow all Americans to protect their economic liberties when Congress sets out to tax and regulate commerce. It's time to strike down laws restricting such participation.
Protection of economic liberty is important, but the implications of banning corporate speech go even further.
If political speech can be banned merely because it is produced or distributed by a corporation or with some corporate funding, then (as the government now argues) books, movies, newspapers, TV and radio could be prohibited from any political speech or programming. Surely this is anathema to the First Amendment.
As currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, the First Amendment provides greater protection for flag burning, nude dancing, simulated child pornography and tobacco ads than for core political speech.
The Citizens United case provides an opportunity for the court to return to first principles and declare that the words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law . . ." apply to all Americans, not just those whose speech is favored by politicians.
Bradley A. Smith is the chair man of the Center for Competi tive Politics and the Blackmore/ Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.