 |
 |
||||||
 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Campaign Finance Ruling by John M. Curtis Copyright
Jan..23, 2010 Tossing out part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled [5-4] that corporations, like individuals, cannot be denied free speech rights. McCain-Feingold, heavily opposed by the GOP’s conservative base, sought to limit the influence of corporations in political campaigns. Consumer advocate and perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader built his career around curbing corporate influence in Washington, where lobbyists twist arms to advance the agendas of publicly-traded corporations. Nader concluded, long ago, that individual freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence were usurped by powerful financial interests: A government in reality of, by and for the corporations. Landing a blow to corporate restraint, the High Court turned back the clock on campaign finance reform. McCain-Feigngold attempted to level the playing field, where no individual or small group can compete in the sphere of political influence with powerful corporations choosing to spend lavishly on candidates or political agendas. “Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of a speaker’s corporate identity,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority in a 57-page opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations,” giving corporations the same rights as individuals. McCain-Feingold sought to restrain corporations from unlimited spending on campaigns giving the sponsored side an undue advantage. “This is the most radical and destructive campaign-finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court,” said Fred Worthheimer, President of Democracy 21, a supporter of McCain-Feingold. Ranting-and-raving about the Supreme Court decision doesn’t change the basic facts connected to campaign finance reform. Republican opposition to McCain-Feingold stemmed from its hypocrisy. Restricting corporations from directly funding candidates or the Republican or Democratic National Committees made no sense when permitting IRS tax-exempt 527 political groups unlimited funding for designated political causes. Calling the High Court ruling “monumental,” Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was pleased with the court’s reversal of McCain-Feingold. “These are bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthens Democracy,” said Sen. John Conyn (R-Texas), lauding the court’s decision. President Barack Obama didn’t hesitate to express his distaste, calling the decision a victory for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc. Without striking down all of McCain-Feingold, the High Court ruled specifically on Section 203 that banned corporations, 30 days before primaries or 60 days before general elections, from paying for print or broadcast ads from their general funds. “Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech by certain speakers,” wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion. Nothing was changed in MeCain-Feingold banning direct corporate contributions to candidates or so-called soft-money in federal elections. Taking up the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a banning “Hillary: The Movie” violated the free speech rights of Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group. Citizens United cried foul when their movie was muzzled. Democrats can’t have it both ways: Banning political advertising when it hurts their cause, while accepting it when it’s beneficial. When “Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth” ran ads in 2004 detrimental to Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign, the Democratic Party cried foul, blaming the GOP for violating McCain-Feingold. McCain Feingold didn’t restrict corporate funded 527 groups advancing political agenda. “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” effectively challenged Kerry’s military credentials, a key issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. “Banning “Hillary: the Movie” forced the Supreme Court to take hard look at the limits of banning free speech. “When government seeks to use it full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful,” wrote Kennedy. Watching Democrats complain about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the First Amendment is a bit surreal. Democrats usually come down on the side of free speech, except, in this instance, where it would prejudice their candidate or cause, in the case of “Hillary: The Movie.” Lifting the corporate ban does little to change a system where corporate-funded 527 groups can speak their minds, in what amounts to circumvent McCain-Feingold. Whether or not more corporations support Republican candidates or causes doesn’t prejudice Democrats when they produce equally persuasive political ads. As with the most recent case of health care reform, Republicans did a better job of raising objections and defining the issue. Whether Democrats like it or not, the Supreme Court reminded them that the First Amendment is more important than restricting controversial political ads. John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
|
Homecobolos This site
is hosted by ©1999-2005
Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
