The sheer amount of misinformation that flows on the internet is staggering. All the supreme court did was make American corporate and organized (EX. union) campaign financing and political speech open and public, instead of having to hide behind fronts. It never stopped in the first place and the ruling changed little besides making donations and campaigns clearer because you'll know whose money is going where. Where does everyone think the money for MoveOn. org came from? A bake sale? What about The Heritage Foundation? Corporate influence has always been present. And to my knowledge, there is nothing in the ruling that invalidates current laws against foreign funding of domestic campaigns as Pres. Obama stated, and I looked for it.
The ruling even opened up the opportunity to demand a private org discloses who they are when advertising for or against a candidate. (I can't find the exact quote right now, but I posted it before)
The bottom line is that preventing organizations from exercising their right to free speech is against the 1st Amendment. If you want to fix the perceived problem, you need to amend the constitution to have an exemption for large groups. The supreme court ruled correctly according to the law.
Is it a perfect example of why the 1st Amendment is a good thing? No, but we have to take the good with the bad if we want our laws to have any relevance at all.
Quote:
|
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
|
Corporation Running for Congress
Hybrid Mode
