SCOTUS: Corperations and Unions can now run campaign ads

[Lich-Loved]

The NYT reports that the US Supreme Court has struck down a law that prohibited unions and corporations for running ads for political campaigns on the basis that such restrictions are a form of censorship.

Regardless whether you are left or right, this is a completely asinine move; the last thing US politics needs is moar munny!! being throw into the candidates pockets, directly or otherwise. The ruling also weakens provisions in the McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance Reform law. The Congress has vowed to move quickly to hold hearings (hahahaha! Assemble a Blue-ribbon fact finding committee to get to the bottom this, will you?) but of course the aim of those hearings will be to provide outward facing rage while the staffers pick up the phones and begin making calls to their union/corporate sponsors to make sure the midterm ads will be ready.

The looting of America by the left and the right continues...

[Username17]

Well, to an extent it hardly matters. Since Corporations were already allowed to give as much money as they wanted to Political Action committees, and those Political Actin Committees can in turn take out ads or give direct donations of cash. For example: The Lignite Energy Council is a Political Action Committee whose entire mandate is to lobby elected officials and to take out political advertising to sway voters towards coal-friendly causes. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of BNI Coal Ltd. in everything but name.

So I honestly don't see what difference it makes for BNI Coal Ltd. to be allowed to attempt to sway public opinion with dollars, considering that it was already doing that. If you think the looting of America is starting nowish, you haven't been paying attention. At least since the great land giveaways of the 1840s.

-Username17

[tzor]

Cool; I can see it now; the Burger King endorses Mr(s) X for Y while Ronald Mc Donald endorses the opposition (just because).

Yes, this is definitely NOT A GOOD THING. It's a bad thing, but as Frank pointed out they can effectively do that anyway so it's more of a minor point than a major one.

[Kaelik]

Actually, the reason this has taken place is based on the case of "Hillary" the movie, and basically comes down to the fact that is any possible corporation anywhere at any time contributed money to the making of a product that is even slightly political, it is banned under McCain-Finegold.

So the actual issue here is that the law was written so broadly as to encompass every book ever published.

For example, that "Game Change" book? If the federal government had successfully prosecuted Hillary the movie, then the book would also have been breaking the law if published or sold within 60 days of "an election" (which means it probably would have been illegal because of the special election.)

The Supreme Court could have statutorily interpreted the law to not be so broad, but four of them already think all of McCain-Finegold is unconstitutional anyway, and Roberts has been leaning that side as the law has been used more and more poorly.

Bottom line, the federal government deserves it for prosecuting "Hillary" so that the Supreme Court would get a shot at this on a clear free speech issue.

It's not specifically campaign stuff, it was "anything supporting, opposing, or commenting on a candidate."

Frankly, I think it's fine.

They already could use that money, now we might actually know who's money is doing what.