Looking at the ruling, I have to disagree with the opinion of Justice Stevens who states, "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". If that be the case, so should unions, and PACs knowing how they too have lobbyists and in many cases deep pockets (Look for Obama's Campaign finance records). Politically there is no difference between a PAC, a union and a Corp. Both will stop it nothing to get their candidate of choice into office with the plethora of resources that they have. This especially goes with CNN,MSNBC and FOX News who spend money on facilitating political speech . All of those are news corporations, who spend X amount of money, on Y amount of pundits to bring forth their appraisal on Senator A and disgust for President B.
In a sense this ruling will be more or resurgence of the rights of CEOs and corporate leaders as voting citizens who are free to support their candidate. I don't think the notion that you own a successful business disqualifies you from using your resources to support your candidate. Its not the government's decision to decide how you do your politics as long as you respect the life, liberty and property of others.
Its the same with me using my blog to support candidates I agree with. I have an advantage over people who don't know how to make a blog. Should I be barred from making blogs and reduce myself to posting Facebook statuses?
Fact of the matter is, removing the restrictions of campaign donations by corporations is nothing more than increasing the number of entities in civil society. More opinions, more interests, more of a fight of ideas, and in the end more democracy.
So what does this mean to the voter. Well nothing actually. Sure Governor K might get more ads than ex-mayor G, but that does not mean that the former automatically wins the election. Voters need to think for themselves not what some ad says to them. This ruling should really be an incentive for the democracy of the democratic republican system rather than a fear that corporations are running the government. If voters decide to not read up on candidates and vote because someone looked good on camera then the interests of corporations, unions, and PACs have prevailed.
good stuff. people need to realize that we voters are people who make our own decisions. even if a negative ad is made for the person I support it doesn't remove my support. i wonder how groups like ACORN feel about this decision...
ReplyDeleteWhat many fail to realize is that while money may be able to buy a larger pulpit and microphone, it is not equivalent to persuasion. The persuasiveness of an individual, PAC, union, business, or corporation is contingent upon their ability to connect to those they are persuading. Money is certainly an effective way to connect people, but not the only way; just ask the unions. It remains to be seen how this wonderful turn of Constitutional events will shape future elections (I'm looking at you, Tea Party movement).
ReplyDeleteOne thing is for sure, our political arena is about to get even more interesting.
Now when do you reckon they'll get around to the Constitutionality of the War Powers act? Heh.
And again I say, if you want to see influencing look to groups like ACORN who not only do the obvious but also make up voters or bring voters back from the dead (for the Dems).
ReplyDelete