Natwerk Designs

What art you going to do with all of the money?

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case." Republicans offered measured praise for the decision, but progressive good-government groups and Democrats responded angrily and vowed to fight back with legislation. "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, for years a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, called the decision a "disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court." "The Supreme Court majority has acted recklessly to free up corporations to use their immense, aggregate corporate wealth to flood federal elections and buy government influence. The Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13 trillion and profits of $605 billion during the last election cycle," Wertheimer wrote. "Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and thereby to buy influence over the candidate's positions on issues of economic importance to the companies." But, you won't be asked to donate any money to the campaign if all of the real money is coming from the wealthy and international corporations of the world, they won't need you $10 bucks, right, oh, you will give anyway because you care and you think they will care about you? Do you really think full disclosure of the names of the wealthy who donate to the campaign of a candidate will help you decide who to vote for? Do you think that your union or church group can donate equal funds to offset the advertismments of the corporations and weathy?

Public Comments

1. The first that should be done is immediate disclosure on all political donations.A these should be printed on the front page of each paper.*
2. This ruling effectively triples the money Republican candidates will have to campaign with this year. Is it any coincidence that this was handed down during an election year where the Republicans(those paid flunkies of the big corporations) are trying to regain seats in the House and Senate?
3. The richest man in the world is Bill Gates. Bill Gates is a registered Democrat, and unabashed liberal. Bill Gates could buy every Senate seat up for re-election in 2012 just with the threat of incorporating and using that corporation and Microsoft to destroy any candidate with opposition ads. This is the worst decision by the SCOTUS since the Dred Scott case. CEOs are calling for Congress to craft legislation to publicly fund political campaigns. Conservatives and Liberals alike see the horror of this.