Cutting and Pasting
The Good
The Opinion makes an excellent point about corporations involved in the news business. Freedom of the press was a clear intent of the Framers. In order to restrict corporate political activity, exemptions have to be made for those corporations involved in the media. This gives one company rights another does not have and that is unfair. Laws that permit a company that owns a newspaper to promote a candidate or issue whenever and however they like, but restrict a non-media company from doing the same are inherently biased.
The Opinion also speaks to the decline of print and broadcast media and the rise of the Internet and new forms of communication. The line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues has become blurred.
People were granted free speech by the Constitution. People create and control corporations as a way to pool resources to better participate in the marketplace and to coordinate their collective efforts. The complex laws limiting certain corporations from political activities intruded on free speech, not the free speech of these corporations, but of the free speech of the people who own the legal entity.
The FEC, Congress and the States need to go back to the drawing board and pass clear rules, regulations and laws about political contributions, spending and financial reporting. The Opinion is clear and correct; laws that restrict one group and create a convoluted set of tests to determine who can participate and when chill free speech. An answer may be found in limiting what corporations can do, not on who funds political activity, but I will get to that.
The Bad
Some corporations have vast resources that could be used to drown out the voices of individuals by paying to clog the airwaves, Internet, newspapers and every other forms of communication with political messages. This is concerning.
Yesterday I watched a newscast which reported how the American people have come together to donate $355 million to relief efforts in Haiti. The story was followed by another about Goldman Sachs’ announcement that it would pay nearly $17 billion in bonuses to employees this year and give $500 million to charities. All of the American people together have yet to match what this one company could do at this moment, if it so chose, for the people of Haiti in this time of need. Now, imagine the power corporate giants could unleash in an election cycle if they wanted to and their shareholders would let them.
The Path Ahead
Corporations are legal entities formed and governed by laws. Unlike an individual, they have no inalienable rights. Restricting corporate participation in politics would take a restructuring of the laws which define and give life to corporations. Government could attempt to strip certain rights from corporations and reserve them solely for individuals, but doing this will be difficult without hindering the ability of some corporations to grow and compete in the marketplace. More important, what is at stake are not the rights of corporations, but the rights of the people who form them. It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two.
The rules changed greatly on Thursday. The public, candidates for office and government are facing a newly unleashed political force and there will be more money in play than ever before. Above all else, the Court sent a message that numerous and complicated rules alone have the capacity to chill free speech. Lawmakers need keep two things in mind when drafting new campaign finance laws; make them easy to interpret and administer, and make it so the laws apply equally to all groups.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ ... eech-case/
