RUSH: Freedom is awaking from its coma today because of a huge, huge, huge Supreme Court decision -- huge. I cannot tell you how big this is. It's a 5-4 decision. The decision was written by Justice Kennedy. And what it does, it removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidate's campaigns. Meaning corporations and not-for-profits can spend any amount of money they want running ads and there's no limit as to when those ads can be run.
So McCain-Feingold takes a huge hit today. Now, the question of campaign contributions directly to candidates was not part of this decision because it was not before the court. So the issue was issue advocacy ads by nonprofit corporations, the Citizens United in this case, but it covers all nonprofits and all for-profit corporations. I'm going to go through it here pretty much line by line just to show you how profound this decision is.
RUSH: Now, I want you to hear this from Jeff Toobin. He is the legal analyst at CNN. The left is just agog, they are beside themselves that freedom is coming out of its coma today, is awakening from its coma with this Supreme Court decision, which I'm going to get into after the break. But I want to show you how upset that Toobin is and the left really are. Toobin is in crisis here.
TOOBIN: It's really not just the 20-year-old ruling from 1990, it's more like a hundred years of regulation of the way corporations are prohibited from being involved in the political process. It's really bigger than 20 years, it's more like a hundred years of precedent being overturned. It basically says money is speech and corporations are people, both of which are debatable propositions but both of which seem to be, you know, popular at the Supreme Court at the moment.
RUSH: What's debatable about corporations are people and money is speech? Those two things are inarguable, that's what the court said by 5-4 with Kennedy, who is the swing vote. He wrote the opinion here. That is significant. He's right, by the way. This turns over 100 years of precedent. You know how anti-corporatist the left is; you know how they hate corporations. This, folks, is causing ulcers. I can't tell you what this decision is doing today to these leftists who just a year ago, they had such high hopes that they're going to have every CEO in jail and every soldier in jail and it's just in one year, because the people of this country are not socialists. The people of this country still have roots to freedom and entrepreneurism and liberty, and nothing -- the left, Obama -- nothing can snuff that out.
RUSH: The Supreme Court decision is a defeat. I'll tell you, it's a defeat, ladies and gentlemen, for the fascists, the statists who seek to control our property, our bodies, and our speech. It is a defeat for Senator McCain. The muzzle is off the American people now because they, in fact, can spend the money on advocacy ads prior to the general and primary elections. It is a 100-year-old precedent that has been overturned. It is solid in that respect.
Citizens United produced an advocacy commercial about Hillary Clinton, which they wanted to run before the primaries. The question was whether it violated McCain-Feingold's ban as some kind of a political commercial. The Supreme Court said such advocacy by Citizens United and other groups is protected constitutional speech, but the opinion addresses more than that. The court says, "The law provides an outright ban backed by criminal and civil sanctions, including nonprofit corporations to either expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary, 60 days of a general election." These would be felonies and the court struck these down. The court struck down all the limits on where you can advertise, when you can advertise, and how much you can spend on this advertisement.
RUSH: More analysis here of the SCOTUS decision today on campaign finance reform. The court says that the McCain-Feingold law provides "an outright ban, backed by criminal [and civil] sanctions ... including nonprofit advocacy corporations -- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election." These would be felonies. The court struck it down. "Laws prohibiting speech, even via corporations, are subject to the highest scrutiny, which is strict scrutiny. It's not enough to broadly claim that a certain form of speech is corrupt. Government may not impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers based on the wealth or lack thereof of the speakers." Do you realize...?
You gotta understand, folks. See, I know liberals -- I know these cockroaches -- and I'm telling you, this just has them boiling today. You add the fact that everything's falling apart and going wrong for Obama. I mean, you go back one year ago almost to the day. Hell, it is one year ago to the day. No, it's one year plus a day. Nevertheless, they thought they were in power in perpetuity. Forever. They had their messiah and it was going to change this country forever -- and now the American people have said: No way. They've learned what this was all about and they're saying: No way. This court decision has these people fuming. "The government may not impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers based on the wealth or lack thereof of speakers. The public has the right..." The court said, "The public has the right to obtain all kinds of information from the widest number of sources."
Now, these are not direct quotes, but these are my summations. This is what the court is saying: Simply because speech has taken on a corporate form does not give it any less protection under the First Amendment. "All speakers who communicate via broadcasting and other outlets amass funds from the economic marketplace to fund their speech." So the idea that money somehow does not equal speech, the court is saying, "Look, everybody who communicates via broadcasting and other outlets amass funds from the economic marketplace to fund their speech." There can be no dispute of that, but it's now the law of the land. "Under the government's reasoning on corporate restrictions, wealthy media corporations would have their voices diminished to put them on par with other media entities." There's no precedent for this. It's not constitutional.
Liberalism itself has just been struck down, this whole notion of "fairness" based on who has more than somebody else or who has less than somebody else, who's bigger than somebody else. There is no precedent for advantaging certain corporations and disadvantaging others respecting speech. Speech is speech. There's the First Amendment. It doesn't matter how much money you have or how big you are, there is no restriction permitted on it. They are really hammering away here, folks. This is pretty sweeping. This is landmark, I would call it. "The law's purpose and effect is to prevent small and large corporations, for profit and not-for-profit, from presenting facts and opinions to the public. There is no constitutional support for this." Struck down. "The law's purpose..." This is McCain-Feingold they're talking about.
McCain-Feingold's "purpose and effect as to prevent small and large corporations, for profit and not-for-profit, from presenting facts and opinions to the public. There is no constitutional support for this." You know, I think back. One of the things that Senator McCain always said was, "You know, money corrupts the system. These good people come to Washington and money corrupts them." We have perhaps the most corrupt presidential administration I've seen in a long time. What does money have to do with it? Is it not their ideas? Is it not their desires that are corrupting them? Is it not who they are that's corrupt? By the way, another reason you know this is a great, great piece of Supreme Court reasoning is that Chuck-U Schumer is livid. Chuck-U is beside himself over this. Chuck-U doesn't like the Constitution. Only his endless speeches are worthy of protection.
Here's a quote from the opinion: "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he may or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." Excellent point, justices -- and it applies equally to talk radio. Let me read this again to you. "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear..." That means Fairness Doctrine. "You can't listen to Limbaugh! He's controversial. He's got a monopoly, and you can't trust him. The Supreme Court says, "You can't censor anybody on that basis. It's unlawful." They struck it down.
There's a lot more to this, ladies and gentlemen. But the important thing here is it's a 5-4 decision, and Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority, which is significant. It's as good a decision as anybody could have hoped for. It's sweeping, and it is landmark.
RUSH: You gotta hear this. Chuck-U Schumer is livid, livid over the Supreme Court decision which takes away all the bans on whatever amount of money corporations want to spend on advertising in political campaigns. He just hates it.
SCHUMER: The Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November's elections. It won't be Republicans; it won't be Democrats. It will be corporate America. Our system of government's the best in the world due to the ability of average citizens to participate and engage their elected officials without the belief that there are corrupting influences at play. I have not seen a decision that more undermines campaign finance and is probably one of the three or four decisions in the history of the Supreme Court that most undermines democracy. We will regret the day that this decision has been issued.
RUSH: Quite the contrary, Chuck-U. Freedom is awakening from its coma today. This does not "undermine democracy." It strengthens it. It gets away from all these other liberal ideas that everything must be equal to be fair. "The big corporation can't donate any more than a little corporation. There have to be limits on all. One hundred years of precedent has been tossed overboard." It is such a great decision, and you know it's a great decision when you see Chuck-U Schumer is this angry. And again, did you hear him? I've told you for the past couple of days: If you have a job in America, you have a bull's-eye on your back because the Democrat Party is targeting your corporation, your company, your small business. Look at their enemies list. Big Oil. Big Pharmaceutical. Big Hospital. Big Insurance. Big Retailer. Any of these people. If you work for one, you've got a bull's-eye on your back because your employer does as well. "It will be corporate America that wins the next election." What he really means here is, "We Democrats will regret the day this decision was made because now corporations can fight back. Now corporations can fight back against us." I can't wait to see what the banks do with their advertising since Obama has tried to put the screws to them two or three times, the latest time just today.
RUSH: So Chuck-U is all concerned. By the way, I thought we weren't supposed to criticize the court. I thought the court was independent. Remember Chuck-U saying we're not supposed to criticize the Supreme Court. He just did. Chuck-U, let me tell you something. I would much prefer corporations winning and running elections than I would unions, much prefer it.
RUSH: Chuck Schumer is announcing that he's going to hold hearings on the impact of the Supreme Court decision today within a couple of weeks. The sheer arrogance! He's calling the Supreme Court decision "un-American." We have an independent judiciary, I thought, Senator Schumer. We're not supposed to criticize judges and justices. You can't change a decision of the Supreme Court. You have to write a new law, which I wouldn't put past them. This is laughable.