By Douglas V. Gibbs
Does the First Amendment apply to corporations the same way it does to individuals?
Free political speech in the terms of campaign contributions made its way into the United States Supreme Court, and corporations are being seen as individuals as a result. The lift of restrictions on campaign finance has critics saying that people going online making $25 contributions will be drowned out by the millions of dollars put into campaigns by corporations, while also opening up the opportunity to allow corruption to rise again with politicians selling their votes to the highest bidder.
The Supreme Court's ruling specifically indicated that ". . . corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns. By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns."
While a victory for free speech, some see this as putting us right back where we started with the problem of corruption between politicians and big corporations.
To solve the problem one school of thought recommends full disclosure of all contributions, placing pressure on corporations by making the public fully aware of their contributions. Under threat of losing consumers corporations will step more lightly on how they contribute to campaigns, and politicians will vote more honestly well knowing that the public is fully aware of where their campaign monies came from.
Another possible solution uses the tactic of non-disclosure, reasoning that a politician can't vote based on the money he or she received if they don't know where the money came from.
Whatever the path to cleaning up elections, one thing is for sure, and the United States Supreme Court agrees, the right way to fight corruption in politics is not to take away the people's right to free speech through the ability, be it through corporate means or individual means, to speak freely with their dollars.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Supreme Court strikes down some McCain-Feingold provisions - Hot Air
No comments:
Post a Comment