A New York Times report says that on January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations. The Court ruled the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidates' elections. The 5-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle--that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters stated that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy. I have a tendency to agree with that statement. The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift and it will have major political and practical consequences. The decision will most undoubtedly be felt in the coming mid-term elections. This decision comes at a time where there's popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses. President Obama stated it was a "major victory for big oil, Wall Street Banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power everyday in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." There's numerous corporate interests that support our political candidates besides corporations and labor unions. There are a number of special interest groups that support Democratic candidates such as the ACLU, LA Raza, the abortion rights groups, the NEA, trial lawyers, George Soros, and many other groups and individuals too numerous to mention. I don't like the thought of corporations and labor unions donating to political candidates, but they just scratch the surface.
"If the First Amendment has any force," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included the four members of the court's conservative win, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That act, which is in essence another term for the McCain-Feingold bill in 2002, restricted spending on unions and corporations. McCain-Feingold also banned the broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications "susceptible to reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
The five opinions in Thursday's decision ran to more than 180 pages, with Justice John Paul Stevens sharply dissenting. Justice Stevens, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same that of human beings. The McCain-Feingold law contains an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries, and and editorials. Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements. The case had unlikely origins involving a documentary called,"Hillary: The Movie." The movie was a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by "Citizens United", a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it.
In reading the results of this Supreme Court ruling, I've had mixed emotions about the ruling. The reason why I've had such mixed emotions is because our politicians don't care anything about the interests of the constituents that placed them into power. Instead, they're beholden to those special interests such as corporate, labor unions, the ACLU, La Raza, and the list continues. They contribute huge sums of money to the political campaigns and once the candidates win and take office, the politicians devote their time paying back favors to these interest groups. I'm disturbed by the thought of the court removing limits on corporate spending. However, I'm just as troubled by the influence of those interest groups that donate to the Democrats as well. I've heard that if we impose spending limits on corporations and labor unions on political campaigns, then the average citizen will be limited on the amount of money they can spend on candidates. I don't believe the government should regulate free speech when it comes to political campaigns and advertisements. I'm just sick and tired of our politicians being bought off by special interest groups.
I believe there needs to be a revamping of our campaign finance laws. I haven't yet drafted a plan on how the finance laws should run. I'm still thinking along those lines. In my mind I wish that the only types of groups or people that could contribute to political candidates are average ordinary citizens and local community groups. I wouldn't have a problem with small businesses contributing to political campaigns, either. However, to prohibit various interests from donating to political candidates seems anti-American and not the right way to go. The problem I have is these multi-national corporation and other interest groups holding sway over our politicians. Most of these elitist groups don't have the best interests of America at heart. That's why I would love to prohibit them from donating to political candidates. However, I'm not certain that's constitutional. That's an issue I'll have to muse on.
No comments:
Post a Comment