Campaign Finance. Are there any two words that, when joined together, become a more mind-numbingly boring concept? Combine the half-truths, spin and partisan attacks of a campaign with an over-legislated, over-regulated form of economics and you're sure to discourage all but the most motivated (or caffeine addicted) reader from getting past the first sentence. Luckily the latest news on the issue can be explained succinctly and anyone who is not blinded by Obama Defense Derangement Syndrome will be able to quickly follow what has already happened and what should happen next.

Continued...

The Case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Case Summary: Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, produced a film critical of a political candidate (Hillary Clinton). At issue was whether the film could be defined as a campaign advertisement under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate

Supreme Court Ruling: The Court struck down the specific provision of the McCain-Feingold Act in question. They found that provision to be unconstitutional as it would violate the First Amendment with regard to Freedom of Speech. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

President Obama's Statement On The Case During his recent State of the Union address, the president said "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong." (source)

Proof That President Obama's Statement Was A Lie: Under US Code Title 2 Section 441e, foreign nationals (specifically including foreign corporations) are already prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election." It is also unlawful under Section 441e for foreign nationals (specifically including foreign corporations) to make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party. This law was neither changed by nor even at issue in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In addition to the president's "foreign corporations can spend without limit in our elections" lie is the "Supreme Court reversed a century of law" lie. In fact, the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission merely reversed two much more recent precedents, one from 1990 and part of another from 2003 which had set the Court in a decidedly new direction by limiting independent corporate campaign expenditures. (source) It seems Mr. Obama's knowledge of math is as bad as his knowledge of constitutional law since 20 years is hardly a century.

All this leads us to...

What Should Happen Next: Instead of urging Congress to pass a bill that undermines the legally sound and fair ruling of the US Supreme Court, President Obama owes an apology both to the Justices of the Court and the American people for his blatant lies. And that apology should be delivered in as public a manner as he delivered the lies.