The misguided theories behind the Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance reform.from Slate.com
Supreme Sellout
The Supreme Court's decision to roll back campaign-finance reform does more than just open the spigots for corporate cash. It also exposes the judicial activism of the Roberts Court.
from the Daily Beast
Supreme Court: No Limit on Corporate Spending on Elections
The Supreme Court has ruled corporations have the right to spend as much money as they like to influence the outcome of US elections. In a five-to-four decision, the court overturned century-old restrictions on corporations, unions and other interest groups from using their vast treasuries to advocate for a specific candidate. The majority opinion affirms corporations have First Amendment rights and that the government can’t limit their political speech. The decision has sparked widespread outrage amongst progressives and calls to have it reversed. This is Robert Weissman of the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Robert Weissman: “What we really need is to get the decision undone. If the court won’t reverse its own decision, the only course available to us is a constitutional amendment. We have to say the First Amendment exists to protect the rights of real people, of you and me, not artificial creations known as corporations, not for Exxon, not for Pfizer, not for Goldman Sachs.”
In a statement, President Obama called the ruling “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
from Democracy Now.org
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"
But have mixed views on other issues at heart of new Supreme Court ruling
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
from Gallup.com
What the Supreme Court got right
from Salon.com
Citizens United v. FEC in plain English
Re-argument, a special session, and Stevens' oral dissent
from SCOTUSblog.com
Rehabilitating an image
from SCOTUSblog.com
Citizens United v. FEC Round-up
from SCOTUSblog.com
Analysis: A new law to offset Citizens United?
The President calls for action
from SCOTUSblog
No comments:
Post a Comment