The Supreme Court today struck down 40-years worth of regulations that increasingly have encroached on free political speech. No more McCain-Feingold. And not a moment too soon, as George Will describes campaign finance reform movement as having “constituted the most dangerous assault on freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts.”
In a free Republic the proper response to speech one opposes is speech in opposition, not opposition to speech
In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions may directly spend on political campaigns. President Obama and irate Libs are livid, pledging “forceful” action to oppose the decision.
See the comments at Washington Post to get a feel for the outrage from the Left that typcially argues that the First Amendment only protects Free Specch of individuals, not corporations that are not people.
The Madison Center defended the decision stating critics do not understand the First Amendment, “So-called campaign-finance ‘reform’ groups will decry today’s opinion as allowing corporations and unions to have undue influence in politics and public life. But they fail to grasp the genius of the Framers of our Constitution.
“The Framers understood that in a free Republic the proper response to speech one opposes is speech in opposition, not opposition to speech.”
…Ironically, it is not rich corporations and unions whose speech has been suppressed by purported ‘reform,’ but the common folk, who cannot afford to hire the lawyers that the rich corporations and unions can afford. Today’s decision is a step toward returning to the day when any citizen can stand and speak her mind—without a second thought about complying with some maze of opaque regulations—because she is an American.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the AFL-CIO, and other groups including the National Rifle Association sided with Citizens United which brought the suit in calling for a loosening of restrictions.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
this piece was obviously written by some sort of pro-lobbyist group. how can allowing corporations to buy an hour worth of prime-time tv to air a 10 million dollar high-production campaign ad promoting a politician possibly help “the little guy.”? this is the death knell for democracy, we are now living in a full coporatocracy. unless you are foolish enough to believe that the average american researches issues, instead of just voting how they are told to by who ever can create the slickest marketing campaign
Lets have a little test.Call
your Representitives and tell
them you want the same
stature they apply to they’re
Corporate lobbyist.Think
you’ll get a response?
What part of “Congress shall make no law…” is so difficult to understand. GE is a corporation. It has been doing political adds for decades. Just because it does so through NBC makes it okay? How obsurd. It does not matter what the consequences are. If burning a flag is free speech, then corporate commercials are free speech. Thank you Founding Fathers, and your Constitution. Once again you are shown to be some of the wisest people to have ever lived.
Sounds reasonable to me, free speech is for everyone, not just the ones you agree with.
You are way off:
“Ironically, it is not rich corporations and unions whose speech has been suppressed by purported ‘reform,’ but the common folk, who cannot afford to hire the lawyers that the rich corporations and unions can afford. ”
That is totally wrong. There is NOTHING in the ruling that makes the common folk suddenly have an answer to the issue of hiring lawyers, and rich corporations etc.
The position of the common folk has not been enhanced by this ruling. This ruling enhances the power of the already powerful.
Get Real.
I have very mixed feelings on this. The real issue is a matter of transparency. What corporations and unions and other power blocs have done is to work around the limitations currently with various independent expenditures and a multitude of PACS and false fronts.
While unraveling the insanity that is the way we finance campaigns is a good thing, I wish they did not use the construct of corporations=people as there are way too many disturbing paths that one can take. Virtual constructs are not people and should not have the same ‘rights’ as people.