![\"Richard](\"http:\/\/newsinfo.nd.edu\/assets\/20620\/garnett_mayer.jpg\" "\\"Richard")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s narrow Supreme Court decision that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress drew reactions from two Notre Dame Law School faculty members.<\/p>\n
According to Notre Dame Law School professor Richard W. Garnett, the court\u2019s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, is \u201cwelcome and correct.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe notion that regulating \u2018negative ads\u2019 or \u2018reducing money in politics\u2019 could return us to an imagined \u2018Golden Age\u2019 of clean and civil politics is, at first, attractive,\u201d Garnett said. \u201cHowever, politics in a free society is necessarily messy, and often unedifying. The alternative, management by insiders and incumbents of the tone and terms of public debate, is worse.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Garnett, \u201cJustice Kennedy got it right: Our First Amendment is \u2018premised on mistrust of government power,\u2019 and is well understood to prohibit attempts by regulators, even high-minded ones, to disfavor certain subjects, viewpoints or speakers.<\/p>\n \u201cOprah Winfrey has a lot of money and influence\u2014more than the Chamber of Commerce, perhaps\u2014but her power to influence others certainly would not justify limiting her speech. It is true that insurance companies can shape views through their speech and spending, but so does The New York Times.\u201d<\/p>\n Garnett said that today\u2019s ruling will not end reasonable regulations that are carefully crafted to prevent election-related corruption, and he noted that it did not invalidate existing disclosure and disclaimer requirements. \u201cIt is one thing,\u201d he said, \u201cto regulate expression\u2014to Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, associate professor of law in the Notre Dame Law School predicts consequences from the decision.<\/p>\n \u201cThis decision will further the shift in electoral power away from the political parties, which still face sharp limits on their ability to raise funds for elections, to 527s and other independent groups that now can receive unlimited amounts of corporate and union money,\u201d Mayer said.<\/p>\n \u201cThat said,\u201d Mayer added, \u201cthe decision does not mean we will suddenly see lots of election ads paid for directly by big corporations such as GE or Microsoft. Given that the disclosure provisions survived, such corporations will not want to risk alienating a large portion of their customers and shareholders. They will rather pay for such ads indirectly through increased contributions to nonprofit organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and trade associations.<\/p>\n \u201cExpect to see many more ads from such groups, and from labor unions and other nonprofit advocacy groups, in this year\u2019s elections,\u201d Mayer said.<\/p>\n Contact<\/strong>: Professor Garnett, 574-631-6981, rgarnett@nd.edu<\/a>; Professor Mayer, 574-598-0740, lmayer@nd.edu<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
\nreduce political speech\u2014out of fear that it will \u2018distort\u2019 the public conversation. It is another thing to say that, as a general matter, people are entitled to know who is paying for the election-related messages they hear.\u201d<\/p>\n