Home » Voices » Columns »

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political advertisements will change voting forever

 
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political advertisements will change voting forever
email

The realm of political campaigns just dramatically changed.

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned laws decades-old that restricted corporations from buying political advertisements which, according to President Barack Obama, will lead to a “stampede of special interest money in our politics.”

He is correct.

Obama and I have not seen eye to eye on every issue during his first year of office, but this ruling needs to be addressed.
Look for the midterm elections to get more ugly than usual now that corporations can fund ads not only issue-oriented, but for candidates directly. Some people — Justice Anthony Kennedy, for instance — say limiting how much money a corporation can donate to a political campaign is censorship and a violation of free speech, but this is incorrect. It is paid speech.

Corporations have millions, if not billions of dollars, at their disposal to spend on political advertisements if they choose to do so. And now they can spend that money as freely as I can walk down the street. They have the ability to control the airwaves. This goes for the left and the right.
It is not okay for a select few, the top 1 percent of companies, to control the political messages on television, radio and the Web. None of the advertisements will be fair — they almost always prove to be smear-tactics and skew facts to get voters on their side.

In 1998, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) pushed for higher taxes on tobacco products to help raise money to increase health research and discourage teenage smoking.
The tobacco industry did not take too kindly to this, however, and did everything it could to get the bill dropped in the Senate. Eventually, the tobacco industry proved to be a formidable opponent and defeated McCain’s legislation through a series of ads that claimed the bill was actually a tax on low-income families, not just cigarettes.

This is a perfect example of how big business can skew facts to fit the message. The tobacco industry was actually not dishonest because most smokers in America are of a lower socioeconomic status.
This is what I fear happening in not just the upcoming election, but the next presidential election as well.

When corporations take a stand on an issue and start rolling out ads in favor of their position they are much more likely to convince voters because they can purchase more airtime.
The ruling by the court last week hurts voters and, instead, benefits big business.

Obama said he would work with Congress to “develop a forceful response” to the decision. What this “response” will be is unclear, but it would behoove Congress to get the ball rolling.

McCain was the one of the architects of campaign finance reform in the early 2000s and he could prove to be a powerful ally in the near future.
We all know money talks. Now it will talk too much.

 
 
  • Timbankful

    In my rebuttal to Mr. Hoffman’s disagreement with the United States Supreme courts “Citizens United V Federal Election Commission” ruling. I will excerpt a portion of the Court’s majority opinion that I believe is the central point argued in defense of the Court’s majority decision to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign law. I will subsequently follow that citation by citing what I believe is Justice Stevens seminal argument in favor of preserving The McCain-Feingold legislation.

    Justice Kennedy writes:
    ” Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the the Government depriving the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speakers voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.”

    Justice Stevens dissent: ” The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration,of the proposition that the First Amendment ban on regulatory distinctions base in a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation…In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.”

    Albeit a corporation has an abstract legal “identity” the corporation itself is a flesh and blood collection of corporate officers and stock holders-are indeed a “class” of people. They are citizens and non-citizens alike who have a constitutional right to have their political opinions expressed in defense of their corporate interests. Consequently, it is my opinion that corporations have a constitutionally protected right to defend the interests of their corporation in the political realm with corporate dollars.

  • Timbankful

    Why has my opinion not been posted?

  • Timbankful

    You folks censored my original post didn’t you? You people are a disgrace! Deceivers one and all!

  • Alice Foham

    So Timbankful, should everyone in government start wearing sponsor patches like NASCAR?

  • CMUStudent

    Dude, calm down – it normally takes them a few hours to approve the comment. Nobody’s censoring your comment.

  • Timbankful

    To CMUStudent: You do not understand this leftest paper. They censor and ban people who do not march to their agenda.

  • Timbankful

    To Alice Fohman: I have no clue what you are talking about?

  • Chill Pill

    Yeah CM-Life, that horribly “leftest” paper whose two political columnists are right-wing nutjobs…

  • Barney Rubble

    you guys are right. there is a conspiracy to censor your opinions. It goes really deep at CM-Life man! the left is out to get us and put us all in fema camps!

    if you think cm-life cares enough about your crappy opinion to censor it, then you are all silly silly people. Go watch Glen Beck and cry in your beer!

  • Killa Cam

    hahaha yes Central Michigan Life: Neo-Stalinist paper.

    Good write up OP, fuck Jason Gillman evuuury day