Supremely troubling
January 26th 2010 07:28
I'm not a lawyer -- nor do I play one on the internet. However, I'm deeply concerned by the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission:
Personally, I think there's too much money in our election process as it is. As a citizen, I have one vote. When these groups (including corporations and unions and other special interest groups) flood Washington with money, it gives them much more power over what comes out of Washington than my puny vote or even the votes of hundreds or thousands of voters. I don't believe that's what our founding fathers intended for our Republic. This decision will only worsen the imbalance that already exists as a result of the corrupting influence of corporate and special interest money.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but the majority of justices claimed that spending money during elections was a free speech issue. How is the free flow of money equivalent to free speech? Also, those free speech rights are guaranteed to "We The People", are they not? I didn't see anything in the Constitution about "We The Corporations" or "We The Unions". Yes, individual members of those groups have free speech rights. However, when they start shilling for their interest groups, that "speech" no longer represents a person -- it represents the interest group.
As I stated, I'm already disturbed by the influence of money in politics. It leads to trouble and, in my opinion, turns our elected officials away from what is best for the people and towards what is best for the group who writes the biggest checks. I fear that the Citizens United decision will only make that situation worse -- and that is a troubling development.
Government cannot restrict corporations from spending money to influence political campaigns, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in an opinion that immediately reverberated across the political landscape and drew strong criticism from the White House.
The decision upends the political battlefield in time for November's high-stakes congressional elections. It also is likely to affect state contests. Twenty-two states prohibit corporate spending in state candidate elections, and two more, New York and Alabama, impose limits on such spending.
The decision upends the political battlefield in time for November's high-stakes congressional elections. It also is likely to affect state contests. Twenty-two states prohibit corporate spending in state candidate elections, and two more, New York and Alabama, impose limits on such spending.
Personally, I think there's too much money in our election process as it is. As a citizen, I have one vote. When these groups (including corporations and unions and other special interest groups) flood Washington with money, it gives them much more power over what comes out of Washington than my puny vote or even the votes of hundreds or thousands of voters. I don't believe that's what our founding fathers intended for our Republic. This decision will only worsen the imbalance that already exists as a result of the corrupting influence of corporate and special interest money.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but the majority of justices claimed that spending money during elections was a free speech issue. How is the free flow of money equivalent to free speech? Also, those free speech rights are guaranteed to "We The People", are they not? I didn't see anything in the Constitution about "We The Corporations" or "We The Unions". Yes, individual members of those groups have free speech rights. However, when they start shilling for their interest groups, that "speech" no longer represents a person -- it represents the interest group.
As I stated, I'm already disturbed by the influence of money in politics. It leads to trouble and, in my opinion, turns our elected officials away from what is best for the people and towards what is best for the group who writes the biggest checks. I fear that the Citizens United decision will only make that situation worse -- and that is a troubling development.
| 62 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
The common man doesn't stand a chance when running against political machine that has unlimited money to spend.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
This decision really bothered me, though. I really like John Roberts and I just can't stand that he fell on the side of big money in this case.