In a recent 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court Justices decided that corporations should no longer have restrictions on the amount of money they wish to spend endorsing or opposing presidential or congressional candidates. President Barack Obama said this decision only profited, “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”. Senator John McCain is also against this decision as well as many others who say that by allowing corporations more access to political campaigns, the democratic system will merely become more corrupt.
A blogger from the Caucus, put it this way: “This year on the 4th of July I intend to host a funeral for the American dream as this ruling marks the end of "liberty and justice for all."
While many people condemn this decision, there are people who are in favor of this ruling.
“Today’s ruling protects the First Amendment rights of organizations across the political spectrum, and is a positive for the political process and free enterprise," says Robin Conrad of the U.S Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Litigation Center.
Although Conrad and others claim that the decision is in accordance with freedom of speech, what they fail to realize is that the more corporate endorsements there are, the more susceptible the democratic process is to promoting candidates whose interests only align with the wealthy donors supporting a candidate. That means that a candidate who may propose policies that are in the best interest for the majority of the American people (not just corporations or the welathy) may be less likely to win. What is now seen as “freedom of speech” may later becomes one person or corporation charting the course that America takes instead of the public at large making decisions about shaping America's future.
Post new comment