Should free speech, as it applies to campaign advertising and funding, be for people, or for groups and associations of people, which would include organizations and corporations?
Apparently, 5 justices of our Supreme Court believe that it should include groups and not just individuals.
However, how can they justify the fact that many of “we the people” are without associations of any kind, and therefore are not justly included in this particular ruling?
This new ruling allows an individual to be represented by many different voices, via the groups, corporations and associations they belong to and contribute to. You can own part of a large corporation and make your preferences known by sponsoring full page expensive ads to promote your candidate, AND you could also be a member of a non-profit organization that is doing the same thing, AND, as an individual you could also contribute to the campaign itself.
That gives you THREE voices instead of one.
This is just plain wrong.
It is not shocking to learn that many politicians would argue that the money reaches the candidates and their campaigns whether we know of it or not, but let us at least take every precaution to make it as difficult as possible for big businesses to influence the lawmaking process.
Why should we make it easy for them?
The 5-4 ruling reverses century-old limitations on corporate money in federal elections by prominently allowing businesses and labor unions to spend — as much as they want — directly in favor of or against candidates on TV or in literature, so long as the action is independent of the candidate and campaign.
Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined him.