Regarding the SCOTUS Decision Today...
I think my reaction is best summed up as GODDAMN EVIL MOTHERFUCKERS.
For those of you just joining us, today the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the government cannot limit the amount of money for-profit and non-profit corporations can spend from their general funds on political media explicitly endorsing one candidate or attacking another.
What that means is that if, say, ExxonMobil has an opinion on who they want in a congressional seat, there is no limit to how much money they can spend to get that individual elected, and no limit to how much they can spend to defame that candidate's opponents. Nothing prevents a corporation from setting up a multimillion dollar advertizing blitz.
It's true that unions and other non-profits can do the same thing. Really, though, who has the deeper pockets?
Further, given that the limits are off, how much impact will the monetary contributions of individuals and smaller interest groups? Even the best, most honorable politicians need money to get elected. If a candidate has to choose between losing a $10,000 contribution from a grassroots group or the support of a $10,000,000 advertising campaign underwritten by Citibank, to whom will the candidate cater?
As long as spending money is equated with political speech, those who have more money will always have a louder voice than those with less. As long as the very few have a staggering monetary advantage over the majority, the very few will dominate politics.
Money needs to come out of the equation.
For those of you just joining us, today the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the government cannot limit the amount of money for-profit and non-profit corporations can spend from their general funds on political media explicitly endorsing one candidate or attacking another.
What that means is that if, say, ExxonMobil has an opinion on who they want in a congressional seat, there is no limit to how much money they can spend to get that individual elected, and no limit to how much they can spend to defame that candidate's opponents. Nothing prevents a corporation from setting up a multimillion dollar advertizing blitz.
It's true that unions and other non-profits can do the same thing. Really, though, who has the deeper pockets?
Further, given that the limits are off, how much impact will the monetary contributions of individuals and smaller interest groups? Even the best, most honorable politicians need money to get elected. If a candidate has to choose between losing a $10,000 contribution from a grassroots group or the support of a $10,000,000 advertising campaign underwritten by Citibank, to whom will the candidate cater?
As long as spending money is equated with political speech, those who have more money will always have a louder voice than those with less. As long as the very few have a staggering monetary advantage over the majority, the very few will dominate politics.
Money needs to come out of the equation.