Friday, January 22, 2010
Corporations, Corruption, and the New Supreme Court Ruling (5:47 pm)
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United vs. FEC that the government has no business regulating the campaign contributions of corporations and unions. Citing First Amendment rights to free speech, the court’s slim majority (5-4) agreed that corporations should be given the same rights as individuals.
That means that corporations (including unions; i.e., any incorporated organization) can now purchase their own campaign ads in support of candidates, so long as they aren’t created by the candidates themselves. According to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, these “independent expenditures” are considered “political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.”
Surprise, surprise: The precedent-overturning decision has triggered significant protest within the progressive community. In an attempt to help individuals compete with corporations, MoveOn.org is circulating a petition to pass a bill to allow public financing of elections.
Mother Jones’ Nick Baumann argues
The truth is that the most important line in the decision was not the one overruling Austin. It was this one: “ingratiation and access … are not corruption.” For many years, the Court had gradually expanded the corruption rationale to extend beyond quid pro quo corruption (donor dollars for legislative votes). It had licensed Congress to regulate even when the threat was simply that large donors had better access to politicians or that politicians had become “too compliant with the[ir] wishes.” Indeed, at times the Court went so far as to say that even the mere appearance of “undue influence” or the public’s “cynical assumption that large donors call the tune” was enough to justify regulation. “Ingratiation and access,” in other words, were corruption as far as the Court was concerned. Justice Kennedy didn’t say that the Court was overruling these cases. But that’s just what it did.
posted by Diana Novak
Reader Comments
One reason why I moved away from the Left, after being involved for 30 years, is it’s failure to understand and support the concept of civil liberties. Political speech is PROTECTED, whether it is being sanctioned by an individual or a group of individuals under the mantle of a corporation. The intent is to broaden participation, not limit it. The Left will whine about corporate hegemony, but the real intention with McCain Fiengold was to stifle opposing viewpoints, and protect incumbents. Score one for civil liberties!
posted by tim ford on 1-27-10 at 3:58 PM
They knew it was coming, and this was from the UN, the WHO, the WTO, and all the W** entities that are to follow. The pressure may have been exerted locally, but shit rolls downhill, and this shit, like the rest of it started in Brussels.Official Cleanse
The owners of worlds’ central banks couldn’t use it’s construct, the UN, to get the guns out of Amercia, so they took the votes out. Just another brick in the wall.
posted by kolahor on 2-2-10 at 2:09 AM
i read your blog and then i can say that Political speech is protected, whether it is being sanctioned by an individual or a group of individuals under the mantle of a corporation. The intent is to broaden participation, not limit it.thanks for the posting but here picture is very funny because middle man very fatty and i enjoy more than your article specially in watching this photo…Muscle Might
I agree with your article or blog which is about the corruption and court law and corporation . all three words are very related to the truthfulness of rule and regulation…..Rezv 1000
posted by gramskit on 1-25-10 at 7:14 AM