Comments on: Huge ruling on campaign laws, free speech

By: Barry Hollander

Barry Hollander — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:54:00 +0000

If you thought it was hard to escape political advertising before, just wait for the 2010 and 2012 adfests.

By: Matt J. Duffy

Matt J. Duffy — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:35:00 +0000

Yep, they just ended the limits on paid advertising from corporations and advocacy groups.

By: Kathie Lumberg

Kathie Lumberg — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:00:00 +0000

There's a difference between campaign contributions and providing paid advertising. That's what the Supremes are talking about here, right?

By: Matt J. Duffy

Matt J. Duffy — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:58:00 +0000

@Kristin: MoveOn.org is also a corporation. Before this ruling, the federal government could prohibit them from spending their money to influence an election. That's just not right — how else can private citizens band together and exercise their speech in a way that makes an impact?@Erica: Yes, the $2,000 limit will still be in place. But, there will no limit in giving money to organizations (i.e., corporations) that will bundled it with other donations to influence elections. I think groups will still be required to say who paid for the ad. @Both: Corporations such as Tostitos and Bank of America have a natural disincentive to not get too political — they know that they'll alienate half their customers and cause their sales to decline. This ruling is really more about limiting the speech of these advocacy groups like MoveOn, the NRA, labor unions, etc.

By: Sheena

Sheena — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:00:59 +0000

Agreed. I will probably be writing on this for the 2/2 issue of The Signal, actually, since none of my staff find it fascinating enough to want it. Personally, I’m enthralled.

By: Erica J Myers

Erica J Myers — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:15:00 +0000

The Bank of America / Pabst Blue Ribbon / Doritos Nacho Cheese 111th United States Congressional 2nd session!Ok, so corporations are people. However, people are limited to $2000 of contribution to candidates. Why are they not limited to $2000, as well? Also, will this be the end of 'Advertising paid for by People Who Like Mentos' and the actual corporation will put their corp's name on the ad?

By: Kristin Malone

Kristin Malone — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:11:00 +0000

Ideally the best idea would win all of the time. But our society is driven by commerce, that being said corporations already have a great deal of influence over our way of life. A large company like JP Morgan is made up of thousands of employees and investors who are actually the makers and owners of that money. This large number of people do not necessary hold the beliefs that the controlling power of the company has. If the CEO decides to support a particular candidate he uses the money of countless individuals to invoke their individual or small group's goal. Ultimately, giving corporations unregulated financial influence in Washington won’t be getting rid of "Tha Man", but creating a new, more powerful one. But who knows? I guess we will soon see what happens when Wall Street meets Washington.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000