Send Feedback

Supreme Court Campaign Finance

WASHINGTON — A major U.S. Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance Tuesday could alter drastically who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of the November congressional elections.

The top U.S. court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the law that said companies and labor unions could be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

RELATED: Sotomayor Takes Her Place In The Supreme Court

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, 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 Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid ads on political issues in the closing days of election campaigns.

President Barack Obama condemned the decision as a victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.

The ruling will lead to a “stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said in a statement. He pledged to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to come up with a “forceful response” to the high court’s action.

RELATED: Supreme Court Rules For White Firefighters In Affirmative Action Case

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader who filed the first lawsuit challenging the McCain-Feingold law, praised the court for restoring the free speech rights of corporations and unions. “By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers,” McConnell said.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year’s elections in November.

The opinion goes to the heart of laws dating back to the Gilded Age of the early 20th century, when Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 to banned corporations from donating money directly to federal candidates. Although that prohibition stands, the same cannot be said for much of the centurylong effort that followed to separate politics from corporate money.

In American politics, unions tend to support Democratic candidates and causes, and industry generally prefers candidates and causes supported by Republicans

The decision’s most immediate effect is to allow corporations and unions to sponsor political ads right up to the moment of an election, and to allow them to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. In presidential elections and in highly contested congressional contests, that could mean a dramatic increase in television advertising competing for time and public attention.

In the long term, corporations, their industry associations and labor unions are free to tap their treasuries to assist candidates, although the spending may not be coordinated with the candidates.

Ben Ginsberg, a Republican attorney who has represented several of the party’s presidential campaigns. “If corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts, … it means that the public debate is significantly changed with a lot more voices and it means that the loudest voices are going to be corporations and unions.”

Tags: Supreme Court
Recommend to friends!
  • BlackPlanet
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email

News One Links

 
  • http://www.blackplanet.com/CaliFemme23/ CaliFemme23

    “The ruling will lead to a “stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said in a statement. He pledged to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to come up with a “forceful response” to the high court’s action.”

    Oh now you KNOW this here quote from the afrikkkraka REALLY surprises me! What! Im shocked! You mean the courts overturned a ruling that limits funding for campaigns??!! This would allow ‘big business’ to KEEP controlling campaigns forever now??!! OMG! What will we Americans do?!

    GET THE FUKK OUTTA HERE WIT THIS BULLSHYT!

    *See Naz…I do post on subjects of substance* ;-)

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/MR_NANASTROKER/ MR_NANASTROKER

    Ditto on that Cali

    I kno they bout 2 do the fool in Congress, in House of Reps, White House

    I can hear Jim Jones playin on BLAST

    POP CHAMPAGNE OOOOHHH!!!

    LMAO……I posted this and they hit me with the 2fast post reply
    NewZero ‘member wat MJ told ya’ll on the Wiz of Oz “U can’t Wiiiiinn”

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/NutN_But_Realness/ NutN_But_Realness

    yeah no doubt….Americas fukked…its a rap…aint no point in me even going to tha polls to vote any more if my vote aint gone matter

  • http://valuableinternetinformation.com/?p=273882 Valuable Internet Information » Supreme Court Overturns Limits On Corporate Campaign Spending …

    [...] Go here to see the original: Supreme Court Overturns Limits On Corporate Campaign Spending … [...]

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/BrotherJohnOfDallas/ BrotherJohnOfDallas

    First, the Glass-Steagall Act, which was created in the 1930s to address the causes of the Great Depression, was repealed in 1999, which led to the Great Recession of 2008 (and is still with us). Now the Supreme Court overturns the Tillman Act in 1907. It was already tough enough for the FEC to regulate PAC money flowing from corporate interests to preferred candidates. Now it will be far more difficult to keep the balance between the wealthy voters and the average voter. Perhaps a constitutional amendment to address campaign finance and bank finance is in order? Constitutional Amendments are far more difficult to overturn than mere congressional Acts.

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/Jeffrey1975/ Jeffrey1975

    Come on now, Republicans had to find some way to remain alive and with this law being overturned, there is no way the republicans will be in the position they were in to the elections of 2008. One key point, not just the oil companies, health insurance, and banks, but what about the booming buisness of warehouseing human beings. Yes, private prisons. That is one of the largest special intrest groups as we speak so to keep Bubba and dumb ass Twiddle dums with a job, more money will be pumped into these groups to continue increasing these establishments. I have to blame the Dems a little on this because with the majority in the house and senate, much more should have been done which in turns has a greater influence on issues such as this. Power to the Special Intrest groups, not the people.

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/blacktino007/ blacktino007

    Damn. This sucks. BADLY. If you thought that politicians where bought and paid for before, you haven’t seen ANYTHING yet :(

    p.s Jeffry1975 if you think that this was a republican ploy(soley) to remain viable, you are soooo wrong. Crooked and soon to be crooked(read: future) Politicians of all ilks are salivating at this one.

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/alpha111906/ alpha111906

    This doesn’t really change anything. The only difference is the money is given ‘directly’.

  • http://www.blackplanet.com/masculine31/ masculine31

    WHO CARES…REALLY? IF THEY DID, WHY R U BE_OTCHING ABOUT IT NOW? FIX DA FUKKIN ECONOMY!

blog comments powered by Disqus
?>