The Citizens United campaign-finance decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and a U.S. Supreme Court majority of conservative judicial activists is a dramatic assault on American democracy, overturning more than a century of precedent in order to give corporations the ultimate authority over elections and governing. This decision tips the balance against active citizenship and the rule of law by making it possible for the nation’s most powerful economic interests to manipulate not just individual politicians and electoral contests but political discourse itself. The high court’s rejection of the ban on direct political spending by businesses, industry associations and their surrogates, and of limits on the amount of money they may spend on campaigning, sets up a dystopia in which our elections could become little more than Super Bowl games, with corporations spending whatever it takes to sell their products, er, candidates. — The Nation editorial
The proponents of the McCain-Feingold law said it was necessary because when people associated using the corporate form, they would be too persuasive. This is nonsense, of course. Sometimes corporate advertising is influential. Sometimes it is not. Corporations are each different. Some will see the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision as an opportunity to support pro-free-market politicians. Some will use it to support liberal politicians. And some will ignore politics completely and simply try to provide goods and services the public wants. This is because a corporation, like every association, is made up of people. It is the people who are now free to speak and to choose the form they believe is the most effective for disseminating their message. With this decision, Americans will get more information, hear more debate, and learn more about their elections. — Bill Maurer of the Institute for Justice, in Seattle Times
