Today in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations can not be put on corporations or unions to limit their spending on campaigns. This allows corporations and unions to funnel money to candidates of their choosing without limits. Buying a vote from a candidate will be extremely easier after this ruling.
The case that brought up this measure was United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission. United Citizens produced a documentary, which attacked Hilary Clinton and wanted to release it during the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Commission declared that the "documentary" was an attack ad and not a documentary. They did not allow the film to be shown during the campaign. In the majority opinion Justice Kennedy argued that it was a violation of Citizens United's First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech that was violated.
What this allows now from this ruling is an unregulated flow of money from corporations and unions to help influence elections. With the items stripped from all the legislation dating to 1907 with the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing to federal election campaigns. Campaign finance reform does not come back into the picture until 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act, which barred labor unions and corporations from making contributions from toward federal campaigns. The next major action came from a Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 in which the court argued that contribution limits were legal, but expenditure limits were restricting free speech. This was upheld in 1980 with the Supreme Court ruling of Republican National Committee v. FEC. In 2002 the McCain Feingold Act also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), came into power. This bill eliminated corporations and unions to use soft money to funnel into federal campaigns. The other major item that came from this act was the limits put advocacy ads that supported a candidate. Suggestive ads could not be ran with sixty days or less on the campaign. These laws were shoring some of the corruption problem in the Untied States.
The previous paragraph thanks to the Supreme Court ruling is now void. With the 5-4 decision, banks, corporations, and unions can put as much money into a campaign as they want. They can produce ads for the candidate that they favor and run them all the way to election day. Their major contributions can influence our members of Congress to a greater extent then they do now.
The alternative opinion of this is a victory for the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is expanded in this ruling. This opens up to First Amendment to corporations. Justice Kennedy wrote, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers." He continues, "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
Although the expansion of the First Amendment this will hurt the American people. This ruling allows corporations the same rights as United States Citizens. Corporations based in the United States, but controlled by foreign interests will have a say in U.S. politics. The ruling presented by the Supreme Court today was extreme. President Obama and some members of Congress say that they are working to stop the ruling by the Supreme Court, but if taken to trial the Supreme Court will declare the laws unconstitutional. We need our voices to be heard and to support measures to curb this ruling.
Two major populous hurt by this ruling are youth and people in poverty. These voices will have an even smaller say in the U.S. political spectrum. In turn will disenfranchise many of these new voters, which will give politicians more reasons to follow the influence of corporations than their constituents.
There are ways to fight back Alan Grayson a Democratic Representative from Florida has a petition out to fight this ruling. Call your representative to show your distain to the Supreme Court ruling. Being vocal on the internet or in any public forum is necessary to show that the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the people.
Like always the links are at the bottom.
Washington Post Article "High court shows it might be willing to act boldly"
FEC Short History
Alan Grayson Petition Link
NPR "Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws"
NPR Campaign Finance Reform Timeline
No comments:
Post a Comment