Louisville Courier Journal Editorial Bemoans "Open Floodgates". Of Course, You Know I DISAGREE.
Open floodgates
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that largely erases long-established restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates is an appalling error and poses a threat to the integrity of American democracy itself.
If that sounds like hyperbole, consider what the Court is saying the government must allow: Wall Street banks and investment houses, insurance firms, oil companies and other mega-industries can now flood campaigns, including on the eve of elections, with massive amounts of money — however many millions of dollars it takes — to elect candidates who do their bidding and to defeat those brave enough to resist.
It means little that the Court's ruling does not overturn the prohibition against direct corporate contributions to candidates, since unlimited expenditures on independent advertising at any point in a campaign can accomplish the same thing. Nor is the peril posed by a flood of corporate money balanced by the Court's removal of similar restrictions on spending by labor unions. That, too, is a terrible idea, but unions don't have the wealth to match big business.
Let no one be in doubt about the radical and potentially transformational nature of this ruling. Efforts to curb corporate power to influence elections date to 1907, during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and have been strengthened frequently by Congress in bipartisan actions. While the Court's majority decision breezily dismisses the perils of corruption and scandal, what do they expect to happen when lobbyists can lure votes with pledges of massive expenditures on behalf of supportive officials?
At least the ruling shatters the misleading claim that conservatives are interested only in strict adherence to the Constitution. By exploiting a relatively obscure case that could have been decided narrowly to order sweeping reversals of even relatively recent Court rulings, the majority engaged in the starkest form of judicial activism. By disingenuously tying their logic to the First Amendment, they ignored that the Constitution makes no mention of corporations' rights and no suggestion that companies have identical rights and interests as individuals.
Congress can and should try to reverse some of the damage. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., are preparing legislation to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive federal money or earn most of their revenue in foreign countries. Another attractive idea is requiring publicly traded companies to obtain shareholders' approval of political spending.
But Republicans are already in an obstructionist mood and stand to benefit most from what has the trappings of a partisan ruling. Relying on their better nature to pass such measures seems a faint hope.
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that largely erases long-established restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates is an appalling error and poses a threat to the integrity of American democracy itself.
If that sounds like hyperbole, consider what the Court is saying the government must allow: Wall Street banks and investment houses, insurance firms, oil companies and other mega-industries can now flood campaigns, including on the eve of elections, with massive amounts of money — however many millions of dollars it takes — to elect candidates who do their bidding and to defeat those brave enough to resist.
It means little that the Court's ruling does not overturn the prohibition against direct corporate contributions to candidates, since unlimited expenditures on independent advertising at any point in a campaign can accomplish the same thing. Nor is the peril posed by a flood of corporate money balanced by the Court's removal of similar restrictions on spending by labor unions. That, too, is a terrible idea, but unions don't have the wealth to match big business.
Let no one be in doubt about the radical and potentially transformational nature of this ruling. Efforts to curb corporate power to influence elections date to 1907, during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and have been strengthened frequently by Congress in bipartisan actions. While the Court's majority decision breezily dismisses the perils of corruption and scandal, what do they expect to happen when lobbyists can lure votes with pledges of massive expenditures on behalf of supportive officials?
At least the ruling shatters the misleading claim that conservatives are interested only in strict adherence to the Constitution. By exploiting a relatively obscure case that could have been decided narrowly to order sweeping reversals of even relatively recent Court rulings, the majority engaged in the starkest form of judicial activism. By disingenuously tying their logic to the First Amendment, they ignored that the Constitution makes no mention of corporations' rights and no suggestion that companies have identical rights and interests as individuals.
Congress can and should try to reverse some of the damage. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., are preparing legislation to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive federal money or earn most of their revenue in foreign countries. Another attractive idea is requiring publicly traded companies to obtain shareholders' approval of political spending.
But Republicans are already in an obstructionist mood and stand to benefit most from what has the trappings of a partisan ruling. Relying on their better nature to pass such measures seems a faint hope.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 3:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home