Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission About Donations

Threats to democracy loom larger every day. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission won't protect the democratic processes involving individual citizens anymore. Money passing hands to politicians won't be limited, because of a philosophical interpretation the law.

"A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed."

In short, the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The diversity of opinion involving the first amendment comes at a time when huge corporations are banding together within ill-omened monopolies. Only regulated by the FCC's weak terminology referencing "reasonable" prices, corporate giants have nearly free reign with pricing.

A landmark decision stating that it is unconstitutional to prohibit campaign advertising or smear campaigns open the gates for big corporations like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to have what appears to be limitless powers of persuasion with their contributions.

The more they charge individual consumers, the more they have to spread around at election time, or during votes of commissions like the FCC, or FTC.

What is described as a radical exodus from the first amendment, some believe that it was never meant to protect corporations. Yet others say that groups of citizens may pool their money into advocating for a cause, and what's the difference?

Still more. . . critics of public campaign finance believe the government should be separate from and have no role in the funding of candidates.

Laws that have previously barred direct and union financing of elections open a window to flooding elections with private concerns in areas of special interests.

Justice Stevens, one of those against this decision spoke with faltering speech in a long discourse to make the point that in the 5-4 vote, "the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings."

Vascilating between whether or not the same consideration could be given to campaign contributions came in the form of a reference to the disclosure ruling which supposedly does give citizens a perspective. A citizen discriminates whether the candidate is merely well funded; or actually viable on his or her own merits.

"The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates, but the two sides disagreed about whether independent expenditures came close to amounting to the same thing." - NYT

Justice Stevens' logic decries the big money interests by saying, "selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf."

Reports show amounts of as much as 50 million spent during a period of two months during a campaign. Huge amounts are spent on TV ads that zero in on federal candidates during the 2,000 elections as data is now conclusive on these figures.

This is why the dissenters rallied against the latest 5-4 ruling.

The McCain-Feingold law had aimed at strengthening the campaign finance law which would prohibit ads against the incumbents within two months of elections and must not be paid for by corporate or union funds.

An example of how this ruling was previously applied when prohibiting . . . "Hillary: The Movie" from being shown on television within 30 days prior to the elections.

Comments range from free speech being the same for either corporations or individuals; and these cannot be considered differently in the outcome. Then, as might be expected, remarks comparing the fall of the Roman Empire to current perceived greed, corruption, and power mongering.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6205366/net_neutrality_and_internet_service.html?cat=15

publiccitizen
Wikipedia
Wisegeek
NYT comments
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html