Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
So what does it mean? I think I know what it means and I think I agree with it actually.
|
It means that corporations/labor unions/special interests can buy an unlimited amount of airtime and media to support political candidates that they favor during elections, as long as they don't directly coordinate it with the campaign. If Exxon likes candidate A because he supports drilling in Alaska, they can spend 10 million dollars in ads to support candidate A or alternatively buy 10 million dollars in ads to destroy candidate B. To a company like Exxon 10 million is nothing but for candidate B to raise that kind of additional money from individual donations would be incredibly difficult. It essentially forces candidates to suck up to corporations and special interests even more than they already do. If they don't they'll be completely outmanned on election day.
The thing that makes the decision so bad is that it is extremely hard to reverse via legislation because the Court essentially expanded free speech to encompass companies. Anything the legistature passes to try to limit the effect of the decision will most likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The part I find particularly funny is that the conservative justices, who are always going on about deferring to the legislature, don't see this as judicial activism, even though they are overturning a 20 year old precedent and the popular will.
Threaded Mode
