The US Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political spending by companies is a violation of 1st Amendment speech rights, thus unconstitutional. Companies may use "...their treasuries to spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates". GOPers favored the ruling saying it was a "...victory for free speech". Pres Obama opposed it saying it was a "...green light to a new stampede of special-interest money". The previous rule-dating to TR in 1907-prohibited companies spending "...their own treasury funds..." to support or attack "...a federal candidate". The McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 further restricted spending one month prior to an election. The court ruled that corporations "...have the same rights as individuals". A previous precedent stated that corporate money could not target a candidate. (I don't know this case: the article did not name it). Till now Political Action Committees (PAC) raised money that had restrictions. The ruling overturns state bans on corporate spending.
The majority: AK, JR, SA, AS, CT. The minority: JPS, SS, RBG, SB.
The case developed from a 2008 federal ban on showing the documentary film, "Hillary: The Movie".
A NYTimes editorial claims this is a "blow to Democracy" which will return the US "...to the robber-baron era of the 19th century". A writer for "commentarymagazine.com" says this is a "...tremendous victory for free speech". In the past politicans were protected from "...political speech that they did not like"
(Source: "US High Court Rejects a Limit on Corporations' Political Spending" from Pilot and wire reports. The Virginian Pilot on 1/22/10. The Virginian Pilot editorial page on 1/23/10)
No comments:
Post a Comment