You can now read 5 articles in a month for free on BostonGlobe.com. Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

editorial

Retired justice speaks up: Stinging dissent on political cash

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Getty Images/file

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue reading below

Even in his retirement, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens can still issue a weighty dissent. On Wednesday, Stevens, 94, inveighed mightily against high court rulings that invalidated limits on campaign contributions. In his first testimony before a Senate panel since his 1975 confirmation, Stevens called for a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and state legislatures to set “reasonable limits” on campaign spending. Such an amendment, currently being pushed primarily by Democrats, would in effect overturn the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which opened the door to unfettered campaign cash.

Stevens, a bitter dissenter in Citizens United, said that decision and others in the same vein ran counter to the concept of a level playing field for voters and “create a risk that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interests of non-voters who provided them with money.” A new report bears Stevens out. The Wesleyan Media Project and the Center for Responsive Politics found that a majority of television advertisements in current US Senate campaigns are sponsored by outside interest groups, and most of them are paid for with “dark money” requiring no donor disclosure. Overall ad spending is already at $43 million, a 45 percent increase from this point in the 2012 election cycle.

Stevens forcefully refuted the legal assumptions behind the Citizens United decision — that campaign spending is nothing more than a form of speech, and that the free-expression rights of corporations deserve the exact same protection as those of individual human persons. A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and approval by three-fourths of the states, would be a daunting battle — and could present unanticipated legal consequences of its own. Nonetheless, Stevens deserves praise for reminding the Senate, and the American public, of the radical consequences of the Supreme Court’s current path.

Loading comments...
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Already a subscriber?
Your city. Your stories. Your Globe.
Yours FREE for two weeks.
Enjoy free unlimited access to Globe.com for the next two weeks.
Limited time only - No credit card required!
BostonGlobe.com complimentary digital access has been provided to you, without a subscription, for free starting today and ending in 14 days. After the free trial period, your free BostonGlobe.com digital access will stop immediately unless you sign up for BostonGlobe.com digital subscription. Current print and digital subscribers are not eligible for the free trial.
Thanks & Welcome to Globe.com
You now have unlimited access for the next two weeks.
BostonGlobe.com complimentary digital access has been provided to you, without a subscription, for free starting today and ending in 14 days. After the free trial period, your free BostonGlobe.com digital access will stop immediately unless you sign up for BostonGlobe.com digital subscription. Current print and digital subscribers are not eligible for the free trial.