The Hill

Campaign Finance Reforms

Julia Newman

       On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court rejected a corporate spending ban, which will greatly change the campaign landscape of upcoming elections.  This 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court is a reversal of the previous government ban on corporation spending to support or aid a political candidate.  The court’s ruling overturns two precedent cases that disallowed corporations to directly finance a candidate (def: a past case dealing with similar issues that establishes a principal or rule).  In this 5-4 decision, the Justices who voted to reject the limit were: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas.  The other four Justices (Stevens, Bryer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor) voted for a limit and wrote a dissent (def: difference of opinion). This decision will have a major impact on the midterm elections in November by increasing the amount of money spent by corporations to support politicians and sway voters.

• The 1^st Amendment (the freedom of speech), has been used by both sides to argue for and against corporate rights.
  
• Those who fought for limits argue: Corporations could dictate elections, minimizing the opinions and votes of other citizens and limiting their freedom of speech.
• Those who oppose limits argue: The government does not have the right to limit anybody’s freedom of speech (including those in corporations), or get involved with how a corporation spends its money.

 

For further reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/legislature/bal-md.campaign27jan27,0,6814951.story