Donations counteract democracy
Samantha House
Issue date: 2/5/10 Section: Features
Corporate political speech is legally equal to individual political speech.
According to Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen of The Washington Post, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee allows corporations and labor unions to use their general treasuries to fund the creation of campaign ads for federal elections.
In the Jan. 22 article, Barnes and Eggen said the ruling reversed a ban that barred corporations and labor unions from running ads 30 days before primary elections and 60 days before general elections.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a passionate majority opinion.
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Kennedy wrote, according to Adam Liptak of The New York Times. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
Justice John Paul Stevens contributed 90 pages to the 180-page response written by the dissenters, wrote Liptak in the Jan. 21 article.
"The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind," wrote Stevens. "And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf."
The case stemmed from a man's decade-long hatred of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
When David N. Bossie heard Clinton, a New York senator at the time, planned to run for the presidency, Bossie created Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, wrote David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times. Through his brainchild corporation, Bossie produced a film titled "Hillary: The Movie," to present Clinton as an untrustworthy villain.
However, when the Federal Election Committee (FEC) asked Bossie to reveal the source of his film's funding, he was barred from airing the film.
In the Jan. 22 article, Savage said the FEC concluded the film was an electronic communication aimed to sway voters, barring Bossie from broadcasting the film. He wanted to release it 30 days before the presidential primary.
Though Bossie lost his first suit against the FEC, five Supreme Court Justices found a soft spot for him in the First Amendment, cutting out squares from the FEC's rulebook.
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission to reveal campaign finance information, enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and supervise the funding of presidential, vice presidential, Senate and House of Representative election campaigns, reported www.FEC.gov, the commission's Web site.
In deciding the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case, the Supreme Court looked at how the FECA regulated corporate contributions to federal elections.
Prior to the Citizens United ruling, the FEC prohibited corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors and foreigners from contributing funds to a candidate or spending money on a candidate's behalf to influence federal elections, its Web site reported. Individuals and corporations were barred from donating more than $100 to candidates running in federal elections.
Individuals and public action committees (PAC) are treated kindly under the FECA.
According to the FEC's Web site, individuals and PACs, such as Microsoft and the National Rifle Association, can now spend unlimited amounts of money in independent expenditures. To qualify as an independent expenditure, the individual or group must spend money on a communication advocating or opposing a candidate without concerting with a candidate.
Despite the new freedom corporations now enjoy, they aren't without leashes.
According to Savage, unions and corporations are still prohibited from donating money directly to political parties or to candidates running in federal elections. The court ruled political sponsors must reveal who paid for their advertisement.
President Barack Obama rebuked court for its decision during his State of the Union address Jan. 27, saying the ruling scored "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."
This is the first story of a two-part series. Check back next week for opinions from the Bonaventure community on the legislation.
e-mail: housesp@sbu.edu
According to Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen of The Washington Post, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee allows corporations and labor unions to use their general treasuries to fund the creation of campaign ads for federal elections.
In the Jan. 22 article, Barnes and Eggen said the ruling reversed a ban that barred corporations and labor unions from running ads 30 days before primary elections and 60 days before general elections.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a passionate majority opinion.
"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Kennedy wrote, according to Adam Liptak of The New York Times. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
Justice John Paul Stevens contributed 90 pages to the 180-page response written by the dissenters, wrote Liptak in the Jan. 21 article.
"The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind," wrote Stevens. "And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf."
The case stemmed from a man's decade-long hatred of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
When David N. Bossie heard Clinton, a New York senator at the time, planned to run for the presidency, Bossie created Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, wrote David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times. Through his brainchild corporation, Bossie produced a film titled "Hillary: The Movie," to present Clinton as an untrustworthy villain.
However, when the Federal Election Committee (FEC) asked Bossie to reveal the source of his film's funding, he was barred from airing the film.
In the Jan. 22 article, Savage said the FEC concluded the film was an electronic communication aimed to sway voters, barring Bossie from broadcasting the film. He wanted to release it 30 days before the presidential primary.
Though Bossie lost his first suit against the FEC, five Supreme Court Justices found a soft spot for him in the First Amendment, cutting out squares from the FEC's rulebook.
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission to reveal campaign finance information, enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and supervise the funding of presidential, vice presidential, Senate and House of Representative election campaigns, reported www.FEC.gov, the commission's Web site.
In deciding the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case, the Supreme Court looked at how the FECA regulated corporate contributions to federal elections.
Prior to the Citizens United ruling, the FEC prohibited corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors and foreigners from contributing funds to a candidate or spending money on a candidate's behalf to influence federal elections, its Web site reported. Individuals and corporations were barred from donating more than $100 to candidates running in federal elections.
Individuals and public action committees (PAC) are treated kindly under the FECA.
According to the FEC's Web site, individuals and PACs, such as Microsoft and the National Rifle Association, can now spend unlimited amounts of money in independent expenditures. To qualify as an independent expenditure, the individual or group must spend money on a communication advocating or opposing a candidate without concerting with a candidate.
Despite the new freedom corporations now enjoy, they aren't without leashes.
According to Savage, unions and corporations are still prohibited from donating money directly to political parties or to candidates running in federal elections. The court ruled political sponsors must reveal who paid for their advertisement.
President Barack Obama rebuked court for its decision during his State of the Union address Jan. 27, saying the ruling scored "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."
This is the first story of a two-part series. Check back next week for opinions from the Bonaventure community on the legislation.
e-mail: housesp@sbu.edu
Be the first to comment on this story