I think it is important to "follow the money" on this one. Put all the pieces together so to speak. The master behind this is the founder of a group called Citizens United a right wing 501(c)4 "non profit" (well after the board gets millions and the rest gets dumped into Republican coffers) named Floyd Brown. Brown is as right wing as they come and makes his living off of the collection and use of "soft money" to push Republican agenda, and candidates.
Anyone who walks through this trail can see that this lawsuit was pushed and pushed ever since McCain Feingold was enacted. I guess luckily for them the Court is still ruled by Republicans.
I often hear Republican pundits argue that the Democrats pack courts and legislate from the bench because their ideas do not pass the public smell test, if so all I can say is this: POT MEET KETTLE!
The First Amendment is clear you have the right to speak freely, and redress your government. We hold that ALL (WO)MEN are created equal!
We had it right once before:
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of some parts, while declaring other parts unconstitutional, of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws. These law restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates.
The Court concluded that limits on campaign contributions "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion." At the same time, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech."
How is this not good enough? How is this not the best shot at equality available as it pertains to money = speech? Why is it that the Republicans have no trouble with the limiting of individual contributions, but take a blind eye to the money sneaking out the back door and into the system by a select few that can buy influence through the use of a corporation?
Now please I can already hear the whining masses on the right about to say "but the unions................", SAVE IT! The unions should not be able to do it either. Until we can get back to a set dollar value of HARD MONEY from INDIVIDUAL donors the process will continue to be corrupted and we will remain in the strangle hold of the two party system, slowly being choked to death by the corporations who currently own our politics.
It seems to me the Republicans who are lauding this decision are saying we want small government run by BIG money. I say how about small government run by EQUAL money? I cannot and will not accept as right, the interpretation that a corporation enjoys the same if not more rights than an individual. And as I asked before: why is the Right interpreting anyways? Are they not the ones who despise the "interpreting" of the Constitution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Texthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United
Author
Topic: Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits (Read 2552 times)
