Some Potential Pushbacks for SCOTUS Decision

FURTHER EMPOWERING BIG BUSINESS: In 2008, “the Obama and McCain campaigns combined to spend just over $1.1 billion, an enormous, record-breaking sum at the time,” but a small fraction of what corporations have available. “With hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate profits at stake every time Congress begins a session,” wrote Millhiser, “wealthy corporations would be foolish not to spend tens of billions of dollars every election cycle to make sure that their interests are protected. No one, including the candidates themselves, have the ability to compete with such giant expenditures.” David Kirkpatrick wrote in the New York Times that the Court “has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.” “The good news,” wrote Millhiser, “is that lawmakers are already considering ways to mitigate the damage caused by Citizens United, and a number of options exist, such as requiring additional disclosures by corporations engaged in electioneering, empowering shareholders to demand that their investment not be spent to advance candidates they disapprove of, or possibly even requiring shareholders to approve a corporation’s decision to influence an election before the company may do so.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) have been “working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision.” Potential fixes include banning political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad. “Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants. A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for.”

via Supreme Court — U.S. Government For Sale.

1 comment

    Corporations aren’t born; they are legal inventions with state-sanctioned paperwork for DNA. How do these non-biological entities, existing through an obeisant contrivance of government, merit equal protection of the constitution?

    More importantly, why don’t actual people enjoy the kind of legal protections America provides to corporations?

    this is what i wanted to say but couldn’t quite organize my thoughts into

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s