Supreme Court: First Amendment allows for corporate campaigning near elections

Originally here: http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/02/supreme-court-first-amendment-allows-for-corporate-campaigning-near-elections-11002

Posted: 23 Feb 2010 11:25 AM PST On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of speech does not prohibit corporations from spending money to promote certain candidates close to election cycles. The Court was narrowly split with a five to fourdecision. Citizens United v. FCC has been called a free speech victory by some but a defeat by others. At the state level, the ruling overturns limits on corporate election spending in dozens of states. In the federal arena, it negates about sixty years’ worth of previous laws limiting corporate campaign money, especially the most recent Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act). The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibits corporations and organizations from sponsoring advertisement for a particular candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. It’s been debated since its inception whether this Act, prohibiting “issue advocacy ads” or “election communications broadcasts,” is unconstitutional, in that it stifles the free speech of collective groups around elections when it is most important to keep citizens informed. Although not specifically stated in BCRA, the wording also limited paid election free speech from unions, general marketplace organizations, religious and grassroots organizations, even those with non-profit 501 (c) 3 status. Concern about losing this type of freedom of speech came from members of Congress and organizations running the spectrum from conservative pro-life groups to liberal green environmental groups. Organizations like Concerned Women for America (CWA) see the latest Supreme Court decision as an overall victory for religious free speech. In a media release , CWA’s CEO Penny Nance wrote: “The Court correctly concluded that judges should stop playing semantics with our Constitution and read the text as it is written. The government should not be limiting political speech because someone is rich or poor, or because they disagree with a particular point of view. Americans are the real winners today.” Nance also noted that, as a matter of record, many senators had voted for McCain-Feingold with full knowledge that it might be unconstitutional. However, according to a Washington Post report, President Obama has called the Supreme Court ruling a defeat for the American people, saying that removing these limitations will allow “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money.” Writing for the Court’s 183-page decision, Justice Kennedy stated, “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.” For the dissenting judges, Justice Stevens called it a radical change in the law ignoring the opinion on such issues of most previous Supreme Court justices. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act also pulled the reins in on “soft money” campaign financing by political committees which was increasingly not subject to federal limits; and prohibited state and local money not only for races, but simple discussion of issues within election time frames.

You are subscribed to email updates from The Underground To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Posted via email from The Underground-- Not Your Average Christian Mag