Check out the grannies before reading!
We all know that campaign donations have the ability to significantly affect the outcome of an election. In 2010 Justice Kennedy ruled, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s prohibition on corporate independent election expenditures violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The fullest and most urgent type of speech protected by the First Amendment is political. Laws that limit this type of speech are subject to strict scrutiny. “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The speech of corporations should be treated no differently than speech from a citizen. If one were to follow the logic of banning all speech from corporations, all printed books, magazines and tv shows expressing a political opinion would be illegal. The Court overturns Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the provisions of McConnell v. FEC that prohibited corporate independent election expenditures.
Justice Stevens concurring in part, ruling the majority opinion undermines the integrity of national elections. Citizens of the country will question the role of government if they believe their elected leaders can be “bought or sold.” The majority relied on personal opinions rather than constitutional values. Almost no citizen would complain about a lack of corporate money in politics.
The ruling is particularly damaging to the interests of the United States, as is evidenced by our Great Recession class readings. We observed time and time again the links that exist between Wall St. and Washington DC. Do you think that corporations have a right as American entities to wholly support a certain political party? Or are the wealthier, larger corporations more likely to support 1 political party due to tax philosophies? Would you rally alongside those awesome grannies?
Here’s an article also if you’re interested in learning more