Supreme Court ruling levels playing field

  • Follow Letters

In reading the editorials and rants from leftists over the recent Supreme Court decision -- that corporations and unions can spend unlimited funds on political causes -- it becomes obvious that the left thinks the Constitution is a bogus document.

The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to free speech. If you believe an agenda will result in the demise of your corporation, you should be able to speak freely or contribute to causes that will prevent the demise of your corporation.

The real problem the left has is that the majority of union dues are going to support the leftist agenda, even if the dues-payers disagree. All the Supreme Court ruling did was uphold the First Amendment and level the playing field.

Bob Waters


Comments (6) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Runner46 02/04/10 - 09:28 am
Mr. Walters must think that

Mr. Walters must think that corporations and unions are voters and thus should be allowed unlimited political contributions. I personally have never spoken to a "corporation" or a "union" entity, so I don't know if these "beings" are voters. A corporation or union is a legal term, not an entity existing of and by itself! As I see it, only the people governed, the citizens of this country, should be allowed to contribute to the elective process. Corporations and unions should stay out of it.

orgpsych 02/04/10 - 10:23 am
A quick history lesson: When

A quick history lesson:

When the Constitution was first drafted only landowners had the right to vote. That meant that, by and large, the wealthy owned and ran this country. The more land you owned the bigger your vote. It's kind of like being a stockholder in a major corporation. Sure, your one share technically makes you a stock holder, but that guy with 50,000 shares is the one who really matters.

Over time this arrangement changed as one group after another sought the right to vote and, thus, have a say in determining their future. Otherwise we would all be essentially indentured to the landowners.

Well, here we are with everyone having the right to vote. Now, though, those with the most money can contribute in uncontrolled fashion to whatever political agenda they wish. These contributions don't have to come from and individual, either. Individuals can hide behind corporate entities and pull strings as much as they wish. They can run attack ads to discredit a candidate based on lies that are never checked or verified. What's the result of this move by the Conservative Supreme Court, much lauded by the Conservative movement (the Republican Party)?

We've taken the country out of the hands of the people and handed it right back to the wealthy. Sure we get to vote, but what information do we use to make those decisions? The airwaves and print media will controlled by the wealthy who want more tax breaks to line their coffers and deregulation to allow them to pursue their interest of personal enrichment at the expense of others. We will hear THEIR side of the story only. Those other facts? Well, they don't really matter anyway now, do they? After all, if they were important, we'd be hearing about them.

How prescient of Steven Colbert when he coined the term "Truthiness." The stage is now set for that to come to pass.

It's funny how the Conservatives don't like so-called Liberal activist judges legeislating from the bench yet they say nothing when Conservative activist judges do the same. First the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court gets to appoint the President and now they get to open the flood gates to Special Interests. What a grand time we live in.

So crates
So crates 02/04/10 - 10:21 pm
Yeah, it leveled something,

Yeah, it leveled something, alright; like an iron skillet against the author's head! But what do I know, perhaps the author of the letter is a corporate end titty.

TheFederalist 02/04/10 - 11:26 pm
Orgpsych, thanks for the

Orgpsych, thanks for the history lesson, but imho your conclusions are flawed. The Supreme Court did not jettison all campaign finance restrictions. Corporations and unions are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Such contributions must be made either by individuals or through regulated political action committees. In addition, although corporations may now spend money to make a political point during election season, the high court has strongly endorsed – by an 8-to-1 vote – disclaimer and disclosure requirements within the federal campaign finance law.
That means that when corporations place a political ad on television or radio within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, it must include the disclaimer: "______ is responsible for the content of this advertising." The high court also upheld a more sweeping disclosure requirement. Any corporation spending more than $10,000 a year on electioneering efforts must publicly disclose the names of individual contributors. Also, Democratic legislators are in the process of blocking this from taking effect before the next election. The battle is far from over, but in any event, this is not the end of this issue, and a far cry from the dire predictions that all future elections will be controlled by the rich corporations. Imho, the real fuss is because Unions will no longer have the clout they once had to impact elections, but I will keep an open mind.

TechLover 02/05/10 - 09:18 am
Level the playing field? The

Level the playing field? The estimated total spent for the 2008 election cycle for president and all national legislative races was $5.3 billion. If the top 5 oil companies, defense contractors, and pharmaceutical companies had spent 10% of their 2007 profits, it would have totaled $18.7 billion. If it doesn't breathe or bleed, it's not a person. I find no mention of any rights granted to businesses or corporations in the Constitution.

justthefacts 02/05/10 - 10:02 am
The Constitution gives us

The Constitution gives us freedom of speech. The Constitution gives us the right to assemble as groups.

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs
Top headlines
FBI takes new look at Clinton emails
The FBI informed Congress Friday it is investigating whether there is classified information in new emails that have emerged in its probe of Hillary Clinton's private server.