Citizens United Lead Counsel On The Decision

Here's a statement from Theodore Olson, lead counsel for Citizens United (the plaintiff in today's campaign finance case) on the Supreme Court's ruling in his client's favor. Olson is also lead counsel in another prominent political case going on right now: the federal-court challenge to Prop. 8, the California gay-marriage ban.

The legal team included fellow Gibson Dunn partner Matthew McGill, as well as Citizens United in-house counsel Michael Boos, Gibson Dunn associates Amir Tayrani and Ryan Watson, and Citizens United's Justin Herring*. Here's Olson on the case, in a statement sent via e-mail by Gibson Dunn:

The Supreme Court's decision today is a victory for the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to participate in the political process.  Speech about our government and candidates for elective office lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and the Court's decision vindicates the right of individuals to engage in core political speech by banding together to make their voices heard.  

McCain-Feingold impermissibly restricted the right of individuals joined together in the corporate form or in a union to engage in political speech when it mattered most--in the period immediately preceding an election.  The Court recognized that permitting widespread participation in the marketplace of ideas will invigorate political discourse, promote public debate on important issues, and, ultimately, strengthen the very foundations of our democracy.  

The decisions that the Court today overruled rested on the faulty premise that political speech can be restricted in order to prevent corporate money from "distorting" political discourse.  In fact, the vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups--like Citizens United--or small businesses.  Far from "distorting" the political process, the speech of these corporations reflects the views of their members or the entrepreneurial individuals who formed the corporation.  Permitting these individuals to have a voice in the political process adds an important perspective to the public debate and enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich.  McCain-Feingold silenced those speakers, and, as the Court concluded, was therefore impossible to reconcile with the First Amendment.

*UPDATE: Justin Herring was not a member of Citizens United's in-house legal team, as originally stated in this post. He was employed by Gibson Dunn.

Presented by

Chris Good is a political reporter for ABC News. He was previously an associate editor at The Atlantic and a reporter for The Hill.

Saving the Bees

Honeybees contribute more than $15 billion to the U.S. economy. A short documentary considers how desperate beekeepers are trying to keep their hives alive.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.

Video

Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.

Video

The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.

Video

Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.

Video

Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses

Video

Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Politics

Just In