This is pretty bad news as far as I’m concerned. It’s boring but important.
Should a corporation be able to fund campaign ads?
In 1990 the court decided that the government could “stop corporations from spending money on ads that urge the election or defeat of a candidate.” That court insisted that there would be a limit to the amount of money a corporation could spend to promote a candidate. This prevents a scenario where a company could potentially pour billions of dollars into political ads and distribute them as the corporation saw fit.
But in 2008 Citizens United (CU), a political group was “barred from airing a negative movie about Hillary Clinton. CU received corporate donations and the movie advocated the defeat of a political candidate within 60 days of an election. CU argued that the ruling violated its freedom of speech, and that the relevant provision of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.”
This recent case made it’s way all the way up to the Supreme Court where the justices weighed it against precedent and the constitution and found that because a corporation is a person in the eyes of the law, to restrict that company’s ability to endorse a candidate for president or for national public office would be a violation of free speech.
Personally I believe that government representatives are elected to carry out the will of the citizens—the human beings—who elected that person. This five to four decision by the Supreme Court ignores this foundational idea that our republic is built upon.
Comments
i agree it is negative, but I’m not at all surprised.
You asked me once, I remember, whether I really “believed” in Marxism, or if I just identified with it out of convenience because I knew a lot about it. While I may not identify myself as a communist, I think this is a perfect example why Marxism and Historical Materialism is extremely relevant today’s political and economic landscape. In a nutshell: underlying any motivations behind the creation and enforcement of laws is the necessity to preserve and protect the reproduction of capital. There is no such thing as the “political ideals” of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. because ultimately they are all subservient to the economic reality of prolonging the reproduction of capital during our current historical epoch.
I think that’s a good point Matt.
In a country where a corporation has the rights of a citizen this decision isn’t surprising at all. But that foundational idea–the corporate “I”–is preposterous in the first place. I wish the court had abolished THAT instead of calling a more perfect union between corporation and state free speech.
My weekend assignment will be reading the dissenting arguments.
Also, sorry for asking you such a cocky question.
I think it’s a valid question, and honestly I feel much more comfortable and confident in those beliefs today than I did back then. wikipedia has a great summary on it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
I just saw this on reddit:
“I am a political fund raising consultant. The SCOTUS ruling CHANGES NOTHING.”
With everyone freaking out about the SCOTUS ruling – I wanted to give you some perspective.
The new rules really won’t change anything. Corporations will NOT be able to give donations directly to campaigns.
What they will be able to do is fund commercials or mailers or billboards or whatever the hell they want to support or oppose a candidate.
The only thing that has changed is that it will make the corporation less paranoid about hiding it…up until today, all a corporation had to do was fund a 527. Just like “The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” – a company (or more correctly, the owners of a company) could give them 100 million dollars to spend on commercials, mailers, radio ads, robo calls, etc.
Now, if they wanted, they could just air an ad and have it say “Paid for by Exxon”.
But do you REALLY think they’re going to tip their hat like that? Hell no. There would be so much negative PR if Exxon or some other company attacked a candidate and obviously supported another.
So basically it’s going to be the same old game. Instead of owners or CEO’s of corporations funding 527’s, the company will just do it – Which is what was really going on before, it was just easy to hide.
Nothing changes.
Money is like water – it finds a crack.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/asq1g/i_am_a_political_fund_raising_consultant_the/
I disagree with this commenter. This ruling had changed the election process of most government offices all across the country, allowing an interested corporation direct access to lawmakers and executives. Just the threat a corporation launching some multi-million dollar campaign will be enough to keep candidates and sitting politicians from standing up against them.
We know too that corporations are much more savvy producers of marking than a 527 could be.The Swift Boaters were able to bring a candidate down with a hastily produced lie. Imagine the power the Fox Corporation will wield in 2012 election.
I don’t think that’s “the same old game” at all. If anything SCOTUS has bolstered the “economic reality of prolonging the reproduction of capital” of the United States’ political system.
I suppose the reason I liked that comment has more to do with my own cynical outlook. i disagree with the notion that the ruling undermines america’s democracy by allowing corporate interest to interfere with the election process. I was under the impression that democracy had already been undermined, and has been for decades. corporate interest already wields massive power with both political parties, it will just be more overt now. but does that really imply a *substantive* change? again, i’m just a cynic, so i think not.