World

Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Finance Restrictions

by nanute | January 21, 2010 at 10:28 am

685 views | 20 Recommendations | 7 comments

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate spending on attack ads in upcoming campaigns, though several Democratic lawmakers have already signaled plans for a legislative response to limit the impact of the decision.

"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

Dissenting Justice Stevens characterized the conservative majority (5-4) opinion as judicial activism, and attacked the use of corporate personhood: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case."

There has been a lot of concern expressed on the left and the right, recently,of the pernicious effects of corporate influence in the political process. This ruling, by a "conservative" majority, clearly gives corporations the same rights as individual American citizens. The notion that corporations are "persons" has been previously established in a footnote in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, in 1886.

Conservative groups such as the and the Center for Competitive Politics hailed today's decision as a positive development. The Heritage Foundation noted that it would be very difficult for the Congress to enact legislation to negate the ruling. Last week, Congressman Alan Grayson, D., Fl. introduced several bills aimed at the expected ruling: "The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, and the Business Should Mind Their Own Business Act.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Hugh Askew

at 10:47 on January 21st, 2010

"Dissenting Justice Stevens characterized the conservative majority (5-4) opinion as judicial activism....."

While i happen to agree with Stevens, he is not exactly the right person to be whining about "judicial activism".

nanute

at 12:09 on January 21st, 2010

Whining? Why do you characterize his dissent as whining?

marianmo

at 12:17 on January 21st, 2010

personally i think this decision is wrong...a corporation is not the same as a person ....in my mind there is a difference between a person and a corporation.......if a corporation is given the same legal rights as an individual, then it follows that the denial of same sex right to marry/civil union....is illegal.......this decision not only makes people out of a thing ie corporation, but will also make a proliferation of silly, biased uninformed ads , attack ads and further fuel the seemingly growing lack of respect that can be seen in america

snuffysmith

at 20:46 on January 21st, 2010

I actually think this decision will lend more transparency to the election process because full disclosure on all media will be required.

nanute

at 01:55 on January 22nd, 2010

I don't think that transparency is the issue here. The issue is that it is now permissible for corporate "persons" to collectively pool their corporate dollars, to effectively buy the political process. Corporations are made up of shareholders. Do shareholders get to vote on who they want to support in an election? Not likely. Same thing with unions. If the leadership, (board of directors), decide to support candidate X, and I support candidate Y, my only recourse is to sell my ownership rights. Furthermore, this decision will allow corporations that are owned by foreign entities to have a direct effect on our political process.

Average middle class citizens by themselves cannot possibly compete on an equal footing with large corporate donors. This is a horrible decision, and Congress is not likely to take any action that will prevent the further erosion of individual rights at the expense of the corporate masters. There's too much money at stake. The only person that is attempting to make any changes through legislation is Alan Grayson, D. Fl.

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/alan-grayson-introduces-bills-fight-corporate-influence

Chuck Kottke (not verified)

at 20:49 on January 21st, 2010

Stevens has a common-sense view, undeniable to anyone familiar with reality. Besides this, I think giving power groups even more ability to dominate the airwaves subverts our natural right to fair elections & fair contests for office. Before all other rights, the right to Fair Elections is crucial to preserving the institutions that protect all of our other cherished rights. In the ninth, and practically forgotten amendment, it is written: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Inherently, our right to Fair Elections, and Fair Contests for Office exists, for it is an obvious natural right of all mankind. And the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances also is intended as a protection of the rights of citizens to do just that, not as a means of persuasion and communication between corporate lobbyists and elected officials.

Stumpf Ganooter (not verified)

at 11:41 on March 15th, 2010

I find it extremely interesting that with all the dissent against this opinion, I don't hear anyone mention what I believe to be the essential point of the matter. Corporations don't have a vote! (Maybe that's next). What is there interest? Why should they participate by providing funding to a process they can't otherwise engage in? Can any stretch of the imagination construe this as other than undue influence? The Constitutional contract is between specific parties: the government, and "We the people" (US citizens). There is no mention of "corporations" in the constitution. The vote is guaranteed to natural persons only. It is a privilege that has been jealously guarded since it's inception. The law cautiously admitted blacks and women over long periods of time and after long struggles. When were corporations given sufferage as a matter of law? Why must we suffer their sufferage as a matter of court decree? It's ironic that such a fabrication by the court which centers on the 14th ammendment actually insures "unequal protection". Corporations now have many times more the vote of a natural person.