Process
Status Items Highlights Done See section below Claims None Questions None Output None
Highlights
Time 0:07:45
Ford’s Administration’s Stance on Campaign Finance Law
- The master planners aimed to dismantle laws restricting unlimited spending in elections.
- President Gerald Ford reluctantly signed amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) after the Watergate scandal.
- These amendments introduced contribution and spending limits, disclosure requirements, the FEC, and public financing for presidential campaigns.
- Despite touting the law, Ford’s administration issued a statement expressing reservations about its First Amendment implications.
- Ford’s statement hinted at a planned legal challenge to the law’s limitations on individual contributions and candidate expenditures. Transcript: Speaker 1 Simultaneously, the master planners are hard at work implementing his blueprint for a corporate takeover of American politics. One of the things they need to do to implement pal’s memo is destroy the laws that prevent them in their financial backers from spending unlimited amounts of money to buy elections politicians And political power one set of those laws has just been reluctantly enacted by president gerald ford in the wake of the watergate scandal he signed several amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, FICA. And in broad strokes, those laws did four things the master planners hated. Speaker 2 One is imposing contribution and spending limits. One is imposing disclosure requirements. One is creating the Federal Election Commission. And one is setting up a system for public financing of presidential, but not congressional campaigns. That’s Rick Hasson. Speaker 1 He’s a professor of law and political science at UCLA, where he also directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project. When Gerald Ford signed the amendment strengthening FICA, it was held up as proof that America was moving on from Watergate and cleaning up government. But not so fast. While Ford was touting the new law in front of the cameras, his White House issued a written statement about FICA that showed how little the administration actually supported the law. The statement from Ford read, quote, although I do have reservations about the First Amendment implications inherent in the limits on individual contributions and candidate expenditures, I’m sure that such issues can be resolved in the courts. Hmm. It’s almost as if that was the plan ever since the meeting
Time 0:09:34
Buckley v. Valeo Significance
- A lawsuit was filed the day after the FICA amendments went into effect, challenging the law on First Amendment grounds.
- Senator James Buckley was the first plaintiff, marking a turning point in American law.
- Rick Hasen calls Buckley v. Valeo the foundational case for understanding the Supreme Court’s approach to campaign finance.
- Everything flows from this landmark case. Transcript: Speaker 1 On January 2nd 1975 exactly one day after these new FICA amendments went into effect a group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court. The first name on this list of plaintiffs was none other than the one. The only the third-party darling, Senator James Buckley, making the serious charge that FICA was violating the First Amendment. As Rick Hasen told us, this case marked a turning point in American law. Speaker 2 It’s the foundational
Time 0:13:55
Challenging Campaign Finance Laws
- Plaintiffs in the Buckley case viewed post-Watergate campaign finance laws not as a check on corruption, but as an assault on free speech.
- Rick Hasden explains that limiting money in politics favors some people over others, hindering those who can’t afford to make their own TV ads.
- The New York Civil Liberties Union argued the laws stifled political speech through government overreach.
- Buckley and McCarthy, as outsider candidates, believed the laws unfairly favored incumbents who already had party support.
- Buckley argued that low spending limits made it harder for unknown candidates like himself to compete. Transcript: Speaker 1 Anyhow, these plaintiffs didn’t see the new post-Watergate campaign finance laws as a way to stop donors from buying votes, elections, and legislation. No, they saw FICA as an unconstitutional assault on donors’ right to free speech. Isn’t it nice when people can find common ground? Speaker 2 Aww. Speaker 1 Here’s political science professor Rick Hasden explaining the plaintiffs’ argument. You know, not everybody is talented. Speaker 2 They can’t make their own TV ads. And so how did they try to participate in elections with money? And if you limit money, then you’re basically favoring some people over others. Speaker 1 The New York Civil Liberties Union argued that these laws were a form of overreach and provided a way for the government to stifle political speech. Senators Buckley and McCarthy saw the laws as unfairly beneficial to incumbent candidates. They’d both been outsider insurgent candidates, meaning they didn’t have the financial support of the two major parties’ political machinery. Instead, both men depended on money from wealthy donors to kick-start their campaigns. Buckley argued that FICA such low spending limits that it made it much harder for an unknown outsider candidate like himself to compete. If you want to campaign
Time 0:18:52
Ford Undermined FICA Defense
- The Ford administration didn’t actually support FICA, despite the government’s official position.
- Ford allowed his subordinates to undermine the law’s defense.
- Robert Bork, as Solicitor General, filed a brief that essentially argued against key parts of the law.
- Bork’s actions were interpreted as signaling to the Supreme Court that the administration wanted the law struck down. Transcript: Speaker 1 Now, you just heard me say that Cox was defending FICA on behalf of the government. But remember, the Ford administration, AKA the government, didn’t actually like FICA. Speaker 2 Here’s Rick Hasen again. People who are working for the federal government, some of them side with Buckley and the plaintiffs. Speaker 1 Essentially, Ford allowed his henchmen to undermine the defense of the law that they were supposed to be upholding. Speaker 2 And in fact, the government ends up filing two briefs in the case, one brief on behalf of the Federal Election Commission that defends the law. And then one brief from the Solicitor General. Speaker 1 The Solicitor General, the number three at the Department of Justice, whose main job is to defend government agencies at the Supreme Court. And at this moment in time, the Solicitor General was Robert Bork. Speaker 2 Bork, Bork, Bork. Speaker 1 Yes, that Robert Bork, the only guy in the Justice Department willing to follow Nixon’s orders and fire Archibald Cox during Watergate’s Saturday night massacre. Now, as Ford’s Solicitor General in the campaign finance case, this was something of a rematch, and Bork was again the hatchet man, taking the unprecedented step of filing a brief that Speaker 2 Says it is not taking a position, but essentially argues that big chunks of the law are unconstitutional. Speaker 1 In essence, Bork was winking and nodding to the court, telling the justices that, hey, the president signed this, so we’re technically obligated to defend this thing. But really, we want you to knock it down. And that’s exactly what the court did on january thirtieth nineteen seventy six at first the ruling seemed to stand up the new campaign finance law the
Time 0:20:18
Money as Protected Speech
- Robert Bork, as Ford’s Solicitor General, signaled the administration’s true stance on campaign finance law by filing a brief that undermined its defense.
- The Supreme Court upheld contribution limits as minor restrictions on free speech but struck down expenditure limits.
- This ruling established that limiting spending on political ads infringed on the ability to communicate.
- James Buckley convinced the Court that money was not a tool of corruption but constitutionally protected speech. Transcript: Speaker 1 But really, we want you to knock it down. And that’s exactly what the court did on january thirtieth nineteen seventy six at first the ruling seemed to stand up the new campaign finance law the court rules that the contribution Speaker 2 Limits do not directly impinge upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political and discussion. Speaker 1 But then came the right hook to the face. Speaker 2 The Court holds that the expenditure limitations are violative of First Amendment guarantees and they are unconstitutional. Boom. Speaker 1 Down goes a big part of FICA. Basically, the Supreme Court upheld the contribution limits, saying they only imposed a minor restriction on free speech. But the court also said that if the government limited how much money a candidate or a special interest group could spend on something like a billboard or a TV commercial, that was a direct Infringement on their ability to communicate, so they struck down expenditure limits. This all may seem like some small technicality, but it was huge. James Buckley and his fellow plaintiffs had convinced the United States Supreme Court to agree in part to the master planner radical argument that money wasn’t a tool of corruption That could be regulated. Money was now a form of constitutionally protected speech. This precedent was everything. It would become the
Time 0:37:50
Powell’s Push for Broad Corporate Free Speech
- In the First National Bank of Boston versus Bellotti case, most Supreme Court justices initially favored a narrow ruling regarding corporate rights related to a Massachusetts tax law.
- The initial view was to allow corporations to demonstrate if the tax measure affected their businesses, without broadly equating corporate and individual First Amendment rights.
- Justice Louis Powell advocated for a much broader ruling, asserting that corporations possess the same free speech rights as individuals.
- Powell argued that corporations should have the autonomy to decide how to spend their money, free from legislative restrictions, thereby seeking to eliminate limitations on corporate free speech permanently.
- Powell was alone in his broad perspective at the conference. Transcript: Speaker 1 There, there, that’s perfect, perfect, perfect. Let’s welcome back to the stage the OG master planner himself, Justice Louis Powell. In the Justice Conference about Boulade, Powell wants to go big, really big. He didn’t want a narrow ruling. He wanted a decision that would blow the doors off of free speech limitations for corporations permanently. Speaker 3 Powell argued that Massachusetts’ law should be struck down because corporations have the same free speech right as individuals. That Massachusetts could not limit corporations to only spending on things that were material to the business, that it was up to the business to decide what to spend its money on, and Lawmakers had no role to play in that decision.
Time 0:42:11
Powell’s Legal Strategy
- Powell was in danger of losing the majority in the court case about corporate speech rights.
- He remembered the Virginia pharmacy case, where the court ruled that the public has a right to hear corporate speech.
- Powell referenced the Virginia case to remind the justices that they had just voted for that ruling.
- By that logic, the voters of Massachusetts had a right to hear what corporations had to say about ballot measures.
- Powell used this argument to secure his majority and radically rewrite American constitutional law. Transcript: Speaker 1 Remembered that Virginia pharmacy case, the one we just discussed earlier in this episode, in his genteel southern manner. Powell referenced the case and reminded his fellow justices that they literally just voted for that ruling, which said the public has an inherent right to hear corporate speech. So by that logic, didn’t the voters of Massachusetts also have a right to hear what the First National Bank of Boston and other businesses had to say about ballot measures? Speaker 3 So Powell uses Blackman’s argument from Virginia Pharmacy to secure his majority and in the end radically rewrite American constitutional law. Speaker 1 Powell convinced just enough
Time 0:42:11
Powell’s Legal Strategy
- Powell initially lacked the majority to strike down the Massachusetts law restricting corporate political contributions.
- He cleverly used the Virginia pharmacy case, which affirmed the public’s right to hear corporate speech, to sway fellow justices.
- Powell argued that Massachusetts voters also had a right to hear corporate opinions on ballot measures.
- By referencing Blackman’s argument from Virginia Pharmacy, Powell secured his majority.
- This strategy radically rewrote American constitutional law, giving corporations broad rights to spend money in politics.
- Powell’s success enshrined his beliefs into law, favoring corporations over individuals. Transcript: Speaker 1 Remembered that Virginia pharmacy case, the one we just discussed earlier in this episode, in his genteel southern manner. Powell referenced the case and reminded his fellow justices that they literally just voted for that ruling, which said the public has an inherent right to hear corporate speech. So by that logic, didn’t the voters of Massachusetts also have a right to hear what the First National Bank of Boston and other businesses had to say about ballot measures? Speaker 3 So Powell uses Blackman’s argument from Virginia Pharmacy to secure his majority and in the end radically rewrite American constitutional law. Speaker 1 Powell convinced just enough justices, including Justice Burger, to join him in a five to four ruling that said that the Massachusetts restriction on political contributions by Corporations violated the First Amendment and was thus unconstitutional. Speaker 3 Giving corporations a broad and expansive right to spend their money on politics and elections, that was a decision that would really radically transform American democracy. Speaker 1 The author of the Powell memo had been alone in the initial conference and now this master planner had forever enshrined his own beliefs into a law that favored corporations, not people. Here’s Justice Powell reading the decision. Speaker 2 The First Amendment’s primary concern, and therefore the court’s concern, always has been the preservation of free and uninhibited dissemination information and ideas. Speaker 1 Especially if that information and those ideas conform to the Powell memo, am I right? Speaker 2 If the restrictive view of corporate speech taken by the Massachusetts court were accepted, government would have the power to deprive society of the views of corporations on all Issues other than those that could be proved to affect