10 Questions About the Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I have to say, every time I come to www.usnews.com you have another fascinating post up. One of my friends was telling me about this topic a few weeks ago. I think I'll e-mail my friend the url here and see what they say.

Coach Designer Purses of AL 5:16PM April 04, 2010

No one has mentioned the fact that many of the stock holders of these coportations are not citizens of the USA! China ownes most of the corportions...

Phillis Perry of NJ 3:47PM January 25, 2010

Corporations already have too much power, which is why this bothers me, on the other hand, I hate going against anybody's right to speak. I could be content to accept this ruling, if in trade, we made lobbying illegal. Lobbying is like bribing our representatives - let us see the same "advertising" that our representatives see.

Andy Glasser of GA 12:48PM January 25, 2010

While, yes, corporations are formed by people, it is the people who are able legally to give money for campaigns, and are free to vote in elections and voice their opinions freely, as we are now doing.
Corporations do have free speech as an entity, as they can write anything they want, it just has to be truthful. They can place ads or write up a report at anytime.
What Citizens United did was try to send out a video against Hillary within the 30 day period prior to a primary election, where no corporation was allowed to do so legally. They had all year long to do this, but chose to fight anti-corruption laws instead. Why am I not surprised that a hard-core right wing conservative republican outfit would seek to defeat anti-corruption laws? After all, there are none so blind as those who refuse to "see".

Carl of GA 10:50AM January 25, 2010

Corporation's are human being's is good news.
You know what Arnold says: "If it bleeds, then we can kill it".
This is great news.
Peace.

Franco of CA 9:46AM January 25, 2010

somewhat amazed. I have to guess nobled judges outweigh noble judges.

christiaan 4:18AM January 24, 2010

1. Corporations, particularly foreign corporations, are not "people" under the Bill of Rights. If they have issues that are important to them, they are permitted to ask their shareholders to speak or contribute on their behalf. Note that "corporations" would include unions, PACs, etc.
2. No one, including the candidate, is allowed to contribute more than X dollars to a campaign in money, goods, time, or services in any election in which they are not eligible to vote. This would include non-office related issues such as ballot initiatives, referenda, etc.
The down side of these amendments is the advantage they would give to incumbents. The upside is that they would suck enough money out of the process that a decent challenger could mount an effective campaign.

In my dreams of MO 1:51PM January 23, 2010

If corporations cannot be limited in the amount they contribute to political campaigns because of the free speech protection of the 1st Amendment, does that also mean they can be restricted in the amounts they pay to federal officials as bribes under the petitioning government protection of that same amendment?

Mike From CT of CT 1:16PM January 23, 2010

Obviously, corporations cannot be held to enjoy the same rights as citiznes. The analysis you undertook leads to an absurdity that even legal shcolars must recognize--assuming anyone of them actually entertains seriously that corporations and citizens are comparable.
Which brings us to an issue that the Supreme Court ruling boils down to: the extension of an established right to a political entity. Did you say those justices who wrote the majority opinion are conservative? I have to wonder about that.
I can see now this court extending the reach of other rights to embryos.
And if you can expand a right, you can certainly restrict them or exempt them from being extended. No marriage rights for gays, for example. We'll have to stay tuned, I guess.

jon of IN 11:20AM January 23, 2010

Why is it okay that a rich person such as Bloomberg and Corzine buy a political seat, but not a corporation?
A self finaced individual does not have to account for how he spends him money to win an election. A incumbet candidate can accumulate a campaign war chest during his time in office and nobody says anything.
Under the present system a poor person, or a non-incumbent has very little chance to win an election. There are two solutions to reform political fund raising. One is public financing, the other is to remove all restriction. If you remove all rstriction you have to mandate that a candidate post in his web site a list of all his/hers contributors within 24 hours of receiving the money. In that manner his opponent and voters can view the list of contributors and make an intelligent decision. Restriction of campaign contributions only help the incombent or the rich. By the way the definition of a corporation can be found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation

Robert Intriago of CA 7:18PM January 22, 2010