Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Corporate Campaign Spending Case
 Printer-friendly
|
 Email article |
Related subjects: Judicial Rulings, Legislation, Quid-pro-quo: Corruption, Rights & Freedoms, The Vote, U.S. Elections, U.S. Law, U.S. news, U.S. Politics, Vote 2010 Comments (1)
The United States Supreme Court has returned to open session to hear a case in which a corporate-funded film was barred from being aired in the weeks prior to an election, because it was intended to serve as a campaign advertisement against then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), who now serves as Secretary of State. The Court will decide whether to overturn laws that restrict the way corporations can spend money to influence election outcomes.
Critics of the conservative-leaning Court say its overtly pro-corporate members, two of which were appointed by former president George W. Bush, might act to overturn those campaign finance constraints, opening the way for a vast flood of corporate money used to influence public opinion during future elections.
David Arkush, of the watchdog group Public Citizen, says “Overturning these well-established laws would turn our elections into free-for-alls, with massive corporate and union spending”. The direct effect, he argues, would be that “Corporate influence would likely be strengthened over all policy decisions — on healthcare reform, climate change, trade, everything”.
Voting rights advocates say that opening the way for unlimited corporate spending to influence elections would be constitute a direct assault on the real individual freedoms of ordinary citizens, whose right to free speech is essentially unequal, due to their vastly inferior personal fortunes. Some civil liberties advocates say a ruling in favor of corporate spending would turn the US electoral system into a private feudal system of big corporate interests.
According to Reuters:
… the court’s four liberals, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said more harm than good could be done by overturning precedents upholding the restrictions on corporations and labor unions.
The comments came during arguments in a special session to consider ending long-standing limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns.
Conservatives on the Court, however, reportedly speculated that existing campaign financing restrictions on “corporate donations” could impede the ability of small businesses —a “local hairdresser” was one example— from participating in the electoral process. But advocates of campaign finance restrictions say such arguments are disingenuous, as they ignore the individual business-owner’s right to participate as an individual, but grant sacred individual liberties to corporations with massive wealth and spending power.
Critics of Pres. George W. Bush have long argued that Justices Sam Alito and John Roberts were named to the Supreme Court mainly for their consistently pro-corporate judicial philosophy. Court-watchers have observed how swiftly this case moved through the system and that a special session was ordered for this case alone, while many other cases languish for years, or even decades, without a hearing.
Now, the Supreme Court stands poised to rule on a case that could determine the spending ability of every presidential campaign for decades to come. At issue would be the constitutionality of specific restrictions imposed by the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which sought to prevent large corporations and labor unions from using overwhelming spending power to influence election outcomes.
The first case to be heard by the newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s first appointee, may be one of the most important she will ever rule on during her time on the Court. A ruling that favors unlimited spending would mean that virtually no legislation other than a Constitutional amendment would be able to constrain corporate spending in elections. A ruling against unlimited spending would be a strike against the judicial concept of corporate “citizenship” rights matching the rights of individuals.
| Printer-friendly
|
Email article |
CafeSentido Partner Sites:
[...] (As the Supreme Court deliberates on the issue of whether corporations and unions should have unlimited spending power in efforts meant to influence elections, it is necessary to consider the Constitutional problems being [...]