Supreme Court Ruled Corporations Have Same 1st Amendment Rights as Individuals

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Roberts court ruled Thursday in a 5-4 decision to overturn a 20-year-old ruling that prohibited corporations from contributing to campaign ads from their own company coffers. This ruling is a major setback for campaign finance reform decisions like the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which restricted the use of soft money in campaign elections.

The decision was supported by five Supreme Court justices: Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy a republican nominee argued in favor of the motion: The 1st Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech. Critics arguing that the campaign finance reform law amounted to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech stated that corporations should be able to spend freely to support the candidate of their choice.

The dissenters of the ruling including 89-year-old justice John Paul Stevens claimed that the decision would have an unfavorable impact on the democratic system and would undermine the election process. Stevens called the decision a radical change in the law that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions and the narrow interests they represent in determining who will hold public office. The ruling does leave some restrictions in place: corporations are still not permitted to contribute money to campaigns directly. In addition, sponsors of political ads must disclose their funding source.

The impact of this ruling is far reaching; the decision sets a precedent that could jeopardize campaign finance reform laws in 24 states as well as allow labor unions more freedom in campaign financing. In addition, this decision is predicted to influence this year s midterm congressional elections as more corporate money litters the campaign trail.