Politics as usual: Still in corporate back pockets
Eric Hasenjager
Issue date: 2/4/10 Section: Opinion
"Freedom of speech has been destroyed." This is the response from MSNBC TV host Keith Olbermann about the Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision on Jan. 21 which relaxed restrictions on campaign elections.
This is one of the many reactions people have toward this result, but is it justified?
The issue hinged on whether corporations' ability to pour money into election campaigns could be strictly regulated, or whether corporations have free-speech rights to spend their cash to influence elections just as individual donors do.
This ruling has not over-ridden the landmark campaign finance bill in 2002, the McCain-Feingold bill.
There are still donor disclosure requirements and spending limits for Political-Action-Committees.
Shortly after the decision, President Obama issued a statement:
"The special interests and their lobbyists have even more power in Washington-while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.
It's noble for the president to take a stand on this issue, but he has been just as guilty as any other politician in receiving money from donors that affect special interest.
He received almost $1 million in contributions in PAC money from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase, the same banks that received the first bailout money at the beginning of last year.
I'm sure contributions made by these banks have had some sort of influence on him and shaping fiscal policy.
But, this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, as corporations pour their money to both sides to hedge their bets on who will get elected, so when somebody does, they can try to influence the person because of their donations. This isn't earth-shattering political strategy. It's just how people get elected.
The First Amendment states in part that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It does not specifically say "the people have the right to free exercise of speech."
This is one of the many reactions people have toward this result, but is it justified?
The issue hinged on whether corporations' ability to pour money into election campaigns could be strictly regulated, or whether corporations have free-speech rights to spend their cash to influence elections just as individual donors do.
This ruling has not over-ridden the landmark campaign finance bill in 2002, the McCain-Feingold bill.
There are still donor disclosure requirements and spending limits for Political-Action-Committees.
Shortly after the decision, President Obama issued a statement:
"The special interests and their lobbyists have even more power in Washington-while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.
It's noble for the president to take a stand on this issue, but he has been just as guilty as any other politician in receiving money from donors that affect special interest.
He received almost $1 million in contributions in PAC money from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase, the same banks that received the first bailout money at the beginning of last year.
I'm sure contributions made by these banks have had some sort of influence on him and shaping fiscal policy.
But, this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, as corporations pour their money to both sides to hedge their bets on who will get elected, so when somebody does, they can try to influence the person because of their donations. This isn't earth-shattering political strategy. It's just how people get elected.
The First Amendment states in part that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It does not specifically say "the people have the right to free exercise of speech."
Be the first to comment on this story