Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Political Giving Questioned
|
||||||||||||
| Printer Friendly Story View |
The high court voted 5-4 to overturn the nearly 20-year old decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
A prominent local political figure, asked about the U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding the power of corporations to influence elections said simply: "We're doomed!"
The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday overturned a decision in a Michigan case that banned corporations from contributing to federal campaigns.
The high court voted 5-4 to overturn the nearly 20-year old decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
Justice Antony Kennedy cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. The dissent was written by John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
The court's ruling could have a monumental impact on election politics, several media and civic sources immediately concluded.
Opponents fear the ruling will allow even more influence over political candidates and issues by corporations and other moneyed interests.
One activist organization, Common Cause, had said: "Lifting the ban on corporate political spending could unleash a flood of money into the political system and further diminish the public's voice." The organization continued:
"Allowing corporations to directly tap their enormous profits for unlimited political spending will hasten the nation's descent into a new era of "corporate democracy" where entities whose sole purpose is to maximize profits are given free rein to dominate elections and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans."
Reversing a 20-year old precedent, the ruling held that corporations and unions can use money from their general treasuries to make campaign contributions.
Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending money from their general funds on advocacy at the federal level since the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ban in a 1967 case, U.S. v. United Automobile Workers.
"The court has repeatedly upheld these regulations in order to ensure that the special economic status corporations enjoy under the law is not used to dominate the political arena," said Common Cause.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that those organizations can use those funds to make independent expenditures not associated with a campaign but can't make direct contributions to a candidate.
The case was brought by the conservative Michigan group Citizens United, which challenged restrictions on its ability to air a 90-minute film critical of the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.
The case centered on the issue of whether the restrictions on political expenditures by corporations and unions restricted free speech.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. He also concluded that "political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence."
The justices also struck down a landmark campaign finance law that banned certain advertisements during the final days of a political campaign.
The ruling does not affect the activities of political action committees funded from voluntary contributions, not the treasuries of organizations.
In writing the minority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
The case is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. To read the opinion and dissent go to: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
| Printer Friendly Story View |
"The BUZZ" - Read Feedback From Readers! |
|
j.kavanagh Says:
On January 22, 2010
at 04:57 PM
Hi Dave...
Does the constitution guarantee freedom of speech to corporate entities just the same as if they were individuals? Wow... who'd have thunk.... What happens to the individuals? Clunk..... |
|
|
Dave Rogers |
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Story View
0200 Nd: 04-15-2024 d 4 cpr 0
12/31/2020 P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm
SPONSORED LINKS
12/31/2020 drop ads P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm