Sun Feb 12 2012
by Mark Sherman
Associated Press Writer
Washington (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 21 that big business can spend its millions to directly support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, a decision that sharply reverses a century-long trend to limit the political influence of corporations and labor unions.
The court, in a 5-4 split, overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
The ruling will lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics," President Barack Obama said in a statement.
He pledged to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to come up with a "forceful response" to the high court's action.
But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions. "By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers," McConnell said.
Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's congressional elections.
"It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions," said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.
The opinion goes to the heart of laws dating back to the Gilded Age when Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907 banning corporations from donating money directly to federal candidates.
The decision's most immediate effect is to permit corporate and union-sponsored political ads to run right up to the moment of an election, and to allow them to call for the election or defeat of a candidate.
In presidential elections and in highly contested congressional contests, that could mean a dramatic increase in television advertising competing for time and public attention.
Associated Press writers Jesse J. Holland and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed.
Hudsonhubtimes.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Login above or Register to comment.
0 Total Comments Home | Back
Copyright Record Publishing Co, LLC. 1995-2011. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications