Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending LimitsThe Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
The court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns and threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
Read More@ NYT
Here's just a little bit of background for people who are actually interested.
In the 1980s Michigan made a law saying that corporations could not use money from their treasury in order to make campaign contributions. This was upheld by the court as legal, and over the next 20 years there have been a series of challenges to the law. Free speech... blablah.
The court has said over those 20 years that if a corporation is intended to be political (like a group incorporated for the sole purpose of advocating pro-life positions), then they get an exception to the ban. Other cases have carved our loopholes for advertisements too far in advance of an election. Another one is that if a corporation only takes money from individuals and not other corporations, then they can also say what they want (so for example Exxon can't merely create a subsidiary corporation intended to be political and then put money in it).
Citizens United was a case where a corporation made a anti-Hillary movie, and 1% of the money in its funds was corporate donations. The court had a choice here: either strike down the entire rule against corporate donations set in Austin, or carve out a loophole for de minimus donations (or some other loophole). They chose the former.
In the 1980s Michigan made a law saying that corporations could not use money from their treasury in order to make campaign contributions. This was upheld by the court as legal, and over the next 20 years there have been a series of challenges to the law. Free speech... blablah.
The court has said over those 20 years that if a corporation is intended to be political (like a group incorporated for the sole purpose of advocating pro-life positions), then they get an exception to the ban. Other cases have carved our loopholes for advertisements too far in advance of an election. Another one is that if a corporation only takes money from individuals and not other corporations, then they can also say what they want (so for example Exxon can't merely create a subsidiary corporation intended to be political and then put money in it).
Citizens United was a case where a corporation made a anti-Hillary movie, and 1% of the money in its funds was corporate donations. The court had a choice here: either strike down the entire rule against corporate donations set in Austin, or carve out a loophole for de minimus donations (or some other loophole). They chose the former.
POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN BOUGHT OFF FOR YEARS BY BOTH CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL FAVORS. THIS RULING MAINTAINS THE STATUS QUO.
ReplyDelete