Corporate political donations could triggered backlash from African American, Latinos, gay rights groups and liberals.
The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.
The 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.
The court's 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
President Obama was not happy about the Supreme Court decision and did not hide his feelings, “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
Campaign finance law experts around the country agreed that the decision will definitely reshape the way elections are conducted. The Supreme Court's broad interpretation of free speech rights is already being felt as the midterm elections approaches. Political donations by corporations are already starting to trigger a national backlash from African Americans, Latinos, gay rights groups and liberals. The last thing a corporation wants to do is to align itself with a divisive, racist or homophobic candidate.
Case in point, due to the new law that allows corporation to spend as much corporate funds as possible on elections, Target and Best Buy recently gave $150,000 and $100,000 respectively to a business-focused political fund that helps Tom Emmer, a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Emmer, opposes gay marriage and other rights for same-sex couples.
Corporate political donors are not limited to only Target and Best Buy. Pentair Inc., Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., Davisco Foods International Inc. and Polaris Industries Inc. are a few. These companies have economic interest in funding republican candidates and are willing to pour millions of shareholders money into campaigns. Republican candidates often promote policies that strengthen business monopolies in the market thus creating higher profits at the expense of the poor people who are forced to work for minimum wages.
Related posts:
- Illinois Introduces L3C Form of Business By: Charles S. Mombo @charlessmombo, @burnedbrass Article Sponsored by: Join...
- Songs that reflect todays socio-political issues While doing my regular exercises this morning at the YMCA...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
ChocolateCity.cc Facebook Comments: