![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Today from SCOTUS...
restrictions on political campaign contributions from corporations are an un-Constitutional infringement of free speech. Corporations can now spend as much money as they want on partisan political campaigns. The rest of us might as well go home.
I'm curious how they justify that "spending money" is protected free speech, but "voting" and "running for office" aren't. Or will tomorrow's ruling be that corporations can vote and run for office too?
On second thought, the ruling as I've heard it described "erases the distinction between corporations and individuals" for purposes of campaign contributions. Which leaves open the possibility that limits on the amount of contributions are still Constitutional. If an individual can contribute $2000, and a corporation can contribute $2000, I'm not so worried.
On third thought, it's pretty easy to create a shell corporation. How many corporations would I have to create, each donating $2000 to my favorite political candidate, to buy the election and the candidate?
I'm curious how they justify that "spending money" is protected free speech, but "voting" and "running for office" aren't. Or will tomorrow's ruling be that corporations can vote and run for office too?
On second thought, the ruling as I've heard it described "erases the distinction between corporations and individuals" for purposes of campaign contributions. Which leaves open the possibility that limits on the amount of contributions are still Constitutional. If an individual can contribute $2000, and a corporation can contribute $2000, I'm not so worried.
On third thought, it's pretty easy to create a shell corporation. How many corporations would I have to create, each donating $2000 to my favorite political candidate, to buy the election and the candidate?
no subject