H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
In a 5-4 decision made last week, the Supreme Court unleashed the power of corporations and unions, giving them the ability to silence the voices of the citizens in a country where the government should be represented by the people and for the people.
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., and Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wis., were the chief advocates for a law passed in 2002 that banned soft money — funds contributed to a political candidate or party that are not subject to federal regulation — and prohibited advertising for federal candidates paid for by corporations or unions within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election. This law protected the interests of the public while keeping the special interests of big businesses at bay.
The security offered by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the voice of Americans has been ripped away by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. Now that the floodgates have been opened, the amount of money corporations can pour into political advertising is comparable to the flood God sent to clean the earth of man’s corruption. Estimates appearing on ABC News place corporations’ contributions at upwards of 1 trillion dollars, an amount the average American can scarcely fathom, let alone ever hope to contribute to a candidate they support.
Before the BCRA was overturned, American citizens had a say in the outcomes of elections by exercising their right to vote. Democracy, by definition, is a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Nowhere does it say “in which the corporations and unions have a voice in the exercise of power.”
A corporation is a collective entity and, by default, a machine that runs on the fuel of self-interest. For a company to survive in the present state of the economy it is going to do everything in its power to support and promote ideas and politicians who agree with its interests. The voice of the people can only be heard if there exists an equal opportunity for individuals to make their opinions known. By giving multinational corporations the upper-hand in financing political advertisements, the efforts made by individual Americans will be smothered.
In an interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said this decision was to promote political free speech. While this justification may sound good to the ears of a company like Exxon Mobil, whose business is dependent on the decisions made by lawmakers, for those of us whose pocketbooks can’t even begin to compete with the corporation’s purse strings, it acts as a muzzle.
Consider for a moment the efforts being made right now to get funding to build a fast rail between Madison and Milwaukee and other major cities. What if Chevron decided the threat of a high-speed train between here and Chicago threatened its sales of gasoline? Potentially, in an effort to protect the best interests of the company, Chevron could decide to funnel an incredible amount of money into the advertising campaign of a candidate who is against connecting these cities via train. Just like that, all the efforts made by pro-rail advocates would be overshadowed by an oil company’s quest to be a dominant source of fuel.
This example is only one of countless situations that could be affected by this new law. If ever a person felt his or her actions didn’t make a difference before, the sentiment will now increase tenfold. It will no longer be just a feeling; it will be a harsh reality. Right now it is essential that the people in this country know their representatives are elected based on the majority of their votes, not because the wealthiest business executives used their positions in major corporations to promote special interests.
It could be argued that the fundraising power of corporations is already apparent in political campaigns, and the results of elections really won’t be affected. As true as this statement might be, this law has removed the blockade that stood in the way of businesses directly giving money to a campaign. Before, corporations had to find creative ways to filter their money into advertisements. Now it is that much easier for them to make their opinions and desires known. This ruling could be the gateway to more laws that would further diminish the voice of the people.
Unless legislation is passed to fix the damage the passing of this bill could cause, the effects on the outcomes of elections will no longer be a reflection of the wants and needs of a public, but rather a clear representation of the special interests of corporations and unions across the country.
Chelsea Lawliss ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
IP hash: c3955587
One thing…corporations don’t have a vote. Why don’t the citizens of the United States thoughtfully look at all campaigns ads..including those from corporations, along with any other bit of info they can get, and make an informed decision themselves? The news you see on TV is from corporations, why should their views be heard but not a group that wants to air a video on Hillary Clinton? This court ruling is repealing censorship.
The Editorial Board at the Wall Stree Journal, “…under McCain-Feingold, the government had the authority to “prohibit the publication” of corporate-funded books that called for the election or defeat of a candidate.” Banning books?? That is censorship, no matter who writes it. You don’t have to read a book unless you want to; you don’t have to vote for a candidate if you don’t want to. Let the American people decide by their vote; let corporations let other points of view about candidates be known.
IP hash: becacb2d
I still don’t like where this Court decision will lead. The only bright spot I can see is that, because the airwaves are already so saturated with political ads, there may not be much more room for ads created by corporations.
I’d really like to see a law that requires corporations who make ads put their names on it, as in: “This Advertisement is Paid For by Wal-Mart.” Both on the screen and spoken. We already generally expect the responsible party to tell the public they made the ad, as in “MoveOn.org is responsible for the content of this ad.”
That might actually keep down the amount of money corporations will actually throw into races. Since businesses don’t really want to alienate potential customers, taking an open political stand might not be a good idea. You don’t want to lose your Democratic customers because you decided to make ads for a Republican candidate!
IP hash: f151ec33
“In a 5-4 decision made last week, the Supreme Court unleashed the power of corporations and unions, giving them the ability to silence the voices of the citizens in a country where the government should be represented by the people and for the people.”
This is a complete reversal of the truth. Corporations and unions have no ability to silence citizens. They only have the power to spend their own money and speak their own minds. It is the campaign finance laws that have given government the ability to silence the voices of citizens - the citizen who own, run and are represented by corporations and unions.
A corporation is NOT a machine, it is a contractual agreement between citizens, and these citizens have a right to pursue their self-interest just like everyone else.
It is not money that corrupts politics but unrestrained government power that corrupts money. The government should not have the power to take money from some and give to others, not for light-rail or farm subsidies, etc. no matter who votes for it.
“Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech…”
What part of “no” don’t you understand?
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Congress can’t say what you do, but congress should be able to say what corporate entities can do.
Also, just as a heads up, congress can abridge free speech all it wants if there is a compelling interest to (i.e. don’t shout fire in a theater.)
IP hash: f151ec33
Restricting a corporate entity IS restricting what individuals can say or do. A corporate entity is just a contract between people. They should have a right to contract and express themselves in ANY way they wish: partnership, corporation, marriage, band, etc…
Congress has no “compelling interest,” nor any right to limit speech. The only proper interest of Congress is to protect the right of individuals to pursue their interests.
Shouting “fire” in a theater is an action, not speech. It is like telling a bank clerk to fill a bag with 20 dollar bills or else.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Maintaining a healthy democracy is a compelling state interest.
IP hash: f151ec33
1) We are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.
2) The Constitution is a limitation on the power of government. It enumerates and limits the power of government for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. This is the state’s only legitimate “interest.”
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Article 1 Section 4 gives congress the power to regulate the time place and manner of elections for the legislature. McCain Feingold is a clear, legitimate, restriction on the ‘manner’ of elections which silences no voices, corporate or human. People can still say what they want about the issues they want, but there can and should be regulations on the amount of money that individuals can spend and to whether they can directly support or attack a candidate with that money.
Free Speech does not mean giving a larger pulpit to the rich than the disenfranchised.
IP hash: f151ec33
No one is giving the rich (or anyone else) a pulpit. Free speech means that you have a right to use any pulpit that you earn however you want.
An election is not the voicing of one’s views about the election, the candidates or ideas - two different things. Article 1 does not apply.
Restricting speech, say, 30 days before an election, in fact, silences voices. It prevents those who want to voice their opinions using their own time and money on issues that are important to them and at a time that is important to them - this is the very definition of “silencing voices.”
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Can we constitutionally ban bribery? If so we can ban massive campaign spending on the behalf of candidates (also article one allows congress to regulate the manner in which elections take place. This means they can literally regulate anything they want pertaining to elections.)
IP hash: 28dfe911
Chelsea, marry me.
IP hash: 78258561
Chelsea Lawliss asserts that corporations have no right to freedom of speech because a �corporation is a collective entity and, by default, a machine that runs on the fuel of self-interest.� On the contrary, Justice Kennedy�s majority opinion notes that a corporation is run by individuals, including those who promote its political positions. He is right: a corporation just is a group of individuals freely associating with each other, and the free speech rights of a corporation derive from the free speech rights of these individuals.
In the majority opinion, Kennedy rebuts the assertion that a corporation is a rightless legal fiction. He demonstrates that a newspaper, such as the New York Times, is published and controlled by a corporation, but is exempt from the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law because of some groundless aura that surrounds a newspaper. The paper, however, is not staffed by machines, but by humans who express their opinions every day and who are paid by the corporation to write what they think.
What fundamental distinction is there between a newspaper and any other voluntary association of individuals, except in its product? None, argues Kennedy. Newspapers are no more special than any industrial or business organization. Their business is to report news and to take sides on issues, but the expression of opinions on issues is not inherently their exclusive domain or expertise. Indeed, is it not in a newspaper�s self-interest — not unlike another corporation�s — to express its opinion and attempt to influence an election?
Citizens United, which was being persecuted by the Federal Election Commission, is a voluntary association of individuals — no different from a newspaper — who agreed on a specific issue and spoke through that association. They were exercising their freedom as thinkers and citizens.
Intellectual freedom, wrote novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, �cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.� Political freedom includes the right to speak, and the right to hire representatives — corporate or otherwise — to speak on one�s behalf.
Edward Cline
IP hash: 559deea8
Individuals can act in an individual capacity. Their corporate capacity should not be so protected and will not be so protected when we actually get some competent judges on the court.