More than 100 years of restrictions on corporate support of political candidates will be at stake next week when the Supreme Court considers whether a quirky case about a film denouncing Hillary Rodham Clinton should lead to a rewrite of the way federal elections are financed.
In an unusual hearing in the midst of their summer recess, the justices will decide whether to move beyond the particulars of "Hillary: The Movie" to more profound questions about the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and how that squares with political spending.
The justices will consider casting aside previous rulings that uphold laws restricting corporate support of political candidates.
The court ruled in 1990 that corporations, because of their "immense aggregations of wealth," possessed a unique ability to drown out the voices of individuals in the nation's political conversation. That precedent was reinforced in 2003 when the court upheld the federal campaign finance law that limits the electoral influence of corporations, unions and special interest groups. . .
I'm a reporter, so I'll refrain from expressing my political opinions on our blog, but I’m curious about what your take is on the Roberts’ Court's future effect on how this country goes about its business.
Yes, the movie is entertainment and is, in some sense, protected free speech, but come on -- the timing of it and its partisan content was so obviously political campaigning, I just can't understand how an argument can be squeezed out of the case to threaten solid, common sense legal precedent regarding campaign finance law. The questions of free speech and freedom of association have already been addressed. Roberts is not respectful of precedent. He is radical and frightening.
ReplyDelete