Please answer the question posed below.
In 2010, the US Supreme Court (the highest court in our country) ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations or labor unions. The decision paved the way for corporations to be allowed to spend as much as it wants on political campaigns of candidates it supports as long as it isn’t a direct contribution.
The case arose from a conservation lobbying group, Citizens United, that wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election and to advertise the film during television broadcasts. The court ruled that such action was allowed and was protected under the corporations’ first amendment rights of freedom of speech.
The US Supreme Court continued its abolition of limits on election spending, striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle.
Do you agree with these two decisions?
Do you see a danger in allowing corporations and now individuals the ability to spend millions of dollars supporting a political candidate for any office. Consider any upcoming federal, state, and/or local elections (including the upcoming 2020 presidential elections) when answering this question.
0 comments