The United States Supreme Court issued a radical decision today in a 5-4 vote led by Justice Roberts. It overturned the vast legal precedent of limits on Corporations' ability to finance political campaigns. Corporations, after this decision, can without limit, pay for ads and pay for politicians. This means that a huge corporation, an Oil Company, Energy Company, Health Insurance Company, etc can spend any amount they want, on any election campaign they want to get the candidate they want elected. So, if say, an Oil Company with $10 billion in net annual profits wants to spend it all on getting their agendas passed, they can do it. Roberts' majority decision is based on an argument that a Corporation has the rights of a person and is entitled to free speech under the First Amendment. This Decision could obviously tilt every law that gets passed in the United States in favor of the interests of large corporations over individuals. Interestingly, Roberts and Alito, at their Confirmation Hearings, testified that they would follow the existing precedent. Yet, they did exactly the opposite in this Decision.
The Decision surprisingly got very little coverage today from the Media.
Justice Stevens wrote the Dissent and said in part:
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210.
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relyinglargely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).
The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrityof elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."
The full Decision can be read at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
TO TAKE ACTION, CHECK OUT THIS SITE AND SIGN THE PETITION: EDIT AND PASTE TO BROWSER-
http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190
