Leahy Scraps with Jones Day Lawyer Over Citizens United

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had just one reaction to the colorful testimony Wednesday on Capitol Hill from Jones Day partner Michael Carvin: "We should probably give you the award for saying the highest level of sarcasm we've heard before this committee in a long time."

In Carvin's defense, the hearing was a set up for political posturing. Titled "The Citizens United Court and the Continuing Importance of the Voting Rights Act," Leahy and Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) used opening statements to tout their party's positions on the issues.

Leahy, for example, delivered one of his oft-repeated lines regarding the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission regarding campaign contributions: "Corporations are not individuals in that regard, otherwise, having elected General Eisenhower as president we maybe will be electing General Motors as president, it makes that much sense."

When it was his turn, Carvin, one of the lawyers who argued before the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of George W. Bush in the 2000 election Florida recount controversy, delivered a rapid-fire commentary on such criticism of the Citizens United decision.

Carvin started out by telling the committee that he found the controversy about the decision "quite puzzling" because the decision simply reaffirmed a core principle of the First Amendment, that Congress can't ban political speech. And "obviously," banning spending on speech is the same thing as banning speech, he said.

"Telling the Washington Post that they can't spend money to endorse Barack Obama is no different than telling the Washington Post they can't endorse Barack Obama," Carvin said. Later, he added, "Surely no one thinks you could pass a law prohibiting MSNBC from endorsing Barack Obama, even though it used to be owned by General Electric and it's still a corporation."

So everyone thinks some corporations have free speech rights, Carvin said — but someone needs to explain why other corporations have become "the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution that is unable to speak."

Carvin said the argument generally goes that corporations have too much money, and too much money gives them too much speech. But he said the notion that corporations are drowning out political speech is "completely unsubstantiated rhetorical nonsense." He referenced testimony about the Supreme Court decision in June to strike down Montana's efforts to limit campaign contributions, a decision bound by the Citizens United decision from 2010.

Later in the hearing, Leahy responded that he was worried that new barriers to voting along with a new flood of campaign contributions — whether from corporations or unions or others — will affect the ability of individual Americans to participate in the political process.

"I'd worry a lot less if we knew exactly who was spending the money," Leahy said.

Comments

[Stryker Hip Recall Lawyer]

My conclusion on this story is that we are on pretty safe common ground when we say “voting fraud is bad.” I have never seen any evidence that supports the claim that there is an existing, impactful problem that these laws would address.

[dj]

Fred -
When you say "We all suffer if ineligible voters vote or if people vote multiple times." This implies you are in possession of some sort of fact-based evidence demonstrating a pattern of voter fraud that would be addressed by these changes. I think we are on pretty safe common ground when we say “voting fraud is bad.” However, I have never seen any evidence that supports the claim that there is an existing, impactful problem that these laws would address. The evidence that many would be disenfranchised is clear. Please provide the evidence of voter fraud that would be mitigated by these discriminatory laws.

[Fred]

re: Re: "the incompetence of those his party incongruously alleges can't manage to obtain a simple state photo ID, provided free of charge":
Tell the Navajo elder who was born at home on the reservation, has no birth certificate, and who must be driven 100+ miles round trip to a DMV office that may or may not be open that she is incompetent. I did not invent this woman. Why should people who are not born into a stereotypical life, especially those who were here before any of us European-heritage people, have to prove that their identity to vote? Please let's not assume that everyone has a driver's license, birth certificate and marriage certificate, or easy access to them. Think outside your own frame of reference.

She never, ever goes the same distance for some other task? What could be more important than voting. A one time hurdle doesn't seem all that difficult of a barrier... The minimal number of people this would negatively impact (in the event the example writer above describes) would be more than offset by ensuring some small degree of integrity in the voting process. We all suffer if inelegible voters vote or if people vote multiple times. While not perfect, this methodology is far less punitive to voting than what occurs now.

[Arizona rat]

Re: "the incompetence of those his party incongruously alleges can't manage to obtain a simple state photo ID, provided free of charge":
Tell the Navajo elder who was born at home on the reservation, has no birth certificate, and who must be driven 100+ miles round trip to a DMV office that may or may not be open that she is incompetent. I did not invent this woman. Why should people who are not born into a stereotypical life, especially those who were here before any of us European-heritage people, have to prove that their identity to vote? Please let's not assume that everyone has a driver's license, birth certificate and marriage certificate, or easy access to them. Think outside your own frame of reference.

[DF Lickiss]

Anonymous political speech is protected for natural persons if my Con Law 1 outline is correct (it is a rather old outline and things might have changed ;-)

[Darren McKinney]

Sen. Leahy tirelessly and tiresomely regurgitates his party's line without regard for the facts or the Constitution. If he really needs something to worry about, it ought to be the incompetence of those his party incongruously alleges can't manage to obtain a simple state photo ID, provided free of charge, but without whose voting input our nation would somehow be worse off.

[Michael R. Graham]

If corporations are "persons" under the constitution, they should be subject to the same rules as "persons". Apparently their ability to remain anonymous derives from the cloak of invisibility Frodo profited from.