In a decision today, the US Supreme Court overturned previous bans on campaign funding by private organizations (i.e. corporations), stating that corporations were entitled to the same first amendment rights as individuals.
Aside from being the top story (for now) on Google news, this doesn't seem to be generating as much discussion as I think it should be, so I think it's important that we talk about it here. The most obvious ramification is that a corporation can now theoretically "buy" a candidate - naturally, some would say this has already been going on for many years, but only with sneaky deals behind closed doors. This decision basically allows a corporation to do it openly, and legally.
The immediate reaction of many liberals is bound to be fear of oil companies, the health care industry, and other conservative interest groups threatened by recent social movements. However liberals shouldn't forget there are many wealthy companies leaning to the left as well, Google being just one example. The big problem with this ruling is not that it gives a particular party an unfair advantage, but that it will probably result in elections becoming even more of a spending contest than they have been. In the past, it has been relatively difficult for private corporations to put together massive political ad campaigns, since spending limits basically force them to rely on the public to some degree - in other words, it was impossible for a campaign to get off the ground without some degree of public support.
I think this is going to be less visible in legislative and presidential races than it is in state elections, where voters (and, by extension, advertisers) can directly influence law. Worst case scenario: our next California state election finds us looking at a slew of wordy and convoluted new propositions (which are common now, but usually voted against due to the voter's unfamiliarity with the topic), some of which are able to pass due to expensive and efficient advertisements, and most of which benefit the organizations who paid for them rather than those who voted.
The other big issue here is the concept that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional rights as individuals, which is a bit more of a grey area. Personally I think that a corporation is a collection of individuals, and while the individuals in charge are entitled to constitutional rights the entire body is a different entity and should be governed differently. I can understand why some might not agree with me on this, but I think it's important that we try and maintain some balance between public opinion and private interest, even if it's a shaky one.
The immediate reaction of many liberals is bound to be fear of oil companies, the health care industry, and other conservative interest groups threatened by recent social movements. However liberals shouldn't forget there are many wealthy companies leaning to the left as well, Google being just one example. The big problem with this ruling is not that it gives a particular party an unfair advantage, but that it will probably result in elections becoming even more of a spending contest than they have been. In the past, it has been relatively difficult for private corporations to put together massive political ad campaigns, since spending limits basically force them to rely on the public to some degree - in other words, it was impossible for a campaign to get off the ground without some degree of public support.
I think this is going to be less visible in legislative and presidential races than it is in state elections, where voters (and, by extension, advertisers) can directly influence law. Worst case scenario: our next California state election finds us looking at a slew of wordy and convoluted new propositions (which are common now, but usually voted against due to the voter's unfamiliarity with the topic), some of which are able to pass due to expensive and efficient advertisements, and most of which benefit the organizations who paid for them rather than those who voted.
The other big issue here is the concept that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional rights as individuals, which is a bit more of a grey area. Personally I think that a corporation is a collection of individuals, and while the individuals in charge are entitled to constitutional rights the entire body is a different entity and should be governed differently. I can understand why some might not agree with me on this, but I think it's important that we try and maintain some balance between public opinion and private interest, even if it's a shaky one.
I'm at odds to decide whether the impact of this will be positive or negative. I think that in the end, the groups (corporations, individuals, unions, charities, consultants, paid special interests, etc.) will end up allocating the same amount of money as they do now. The difference will be that they can spend it directly instead of donating it and having it spent. In this way there will actually be more visibility in the system; you can tell who's money is paying for what.
The Supreme Court isn't to blame for this, they made their decision based on the current legislation. If people are against that then they need to push to have the legislation changed or complain about how it was written in the first place, not changes that have been made now.