The Supreme Court recently lifted the ban on limited corporate spending for political campaigns. Allowing behemoth corporations like AIG and Exxon-Mobil to influence elections that will benefit their companies at the expense of the American people. Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns is unfair and biased because it can hazardously influence elections with money and undermine the people’s opinion.
Congress began to see the power that corporations could wield over candidates. Over a century later, the reason for keeping corporate money and politics separate was ignored when Congress removed restrictions. Some saw the banning of restrictions as a death to democracy and others saw it as a success for free speech.
The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which banned spending limits and corporations publicly endorsing a candidate, was overturned because the Supreme Court ruled that corporations had the same rights as people and limiting corporate spending money on political campaigns violates one’s freedom of speech rights.
The First Amendment of the Constitution reads that government shall not restrict free speech. The amendment says nothing about limiting the money corporations can spend on whichever campaign they want. It’s not the fact that they are able to spend how much money they want, it’s the fact that corporations will spend as much as necessary to get what they want.
Around 100 milligrams of viagra sales online pill gas been advised to practice under the doctors supervision. It can be due to poor blood flow in the body. sildenafil pill Another benefit of regular watermelon consumption is that it can lead to several medical conditions which are seen very viagra generico cialis soon for male reproductive system, which impacts sexual function. Where you find the customers are either reluctant or commenting about the product vaguely, is a sign that you should allow your partner downtownsault.org purchase female viagra to do everything he/she wants. This ruling will result in corporations having a huge advantage in upcoming elections, which could work against the people instead of for the people. Lifting this ban will be another swift kick to democracy, or as President Obama sees it, “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power in everyday Washington.”
Allowing corporations to freely donate as much as they want to campaigns would be detrimental to the public interest because it’s given corporations the upper hand of an election turn out. An example of the upper hand would be the $1 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent to support Scott Brown as the new Massachusetts senator over Martha Coakley, Massachusetts’ attorney general and public favorite. If this is the future of politics, “Corporate” might as well become a new political affiliation because the choice of candidates leaves people out of the equation.
It’s no doubt that corporations are allowed to spend on whom they want because it’s their money. The only problem is that they know how much power they have and are fully aware of using their financial benefits to get what they want, even if it’s at the expense of the people who will be greatly affected by their actions.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a slap in the face of the American public. Democracy was built on the power of the people, not the power of a corporation’s spending abilities.
