“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
Ah, yes, because an "association of citizens" deserves to be treated as a single citizen?
No.
By default, an association of citizens has much more power than a single citizen. Therefore, a single citizen should have more protections than an association of citizens and no association of citizens should be given the same rights as an individual.
I know that might be a little mind-bendy, but think about it. If an association of citizens with all the power, money and influence of it's individual citizens wants something, but YOU are against it, how can you compete if they can buy a national TV spot?
The law should protect each individual's right to speak and spend, more or less, as they please, but a corporation, motivated solely by profit, should not be allowed to give to campaigns and therefore effect the political landscape.
I should mention that I think spending should be capped when it comes to donations to campaigns. The idea is to keep corruption to a minimum and Warren Buffet can afford to donate a LOT more to his favorite candidate than I can afford to give to mine. This effectively means that politicians can be bought.
Ultimately, it's about making sure we all have an equal voice in this. Unless Chris Hedges is right in saying that democracy is just for show and the corporations already do own us.
Just my ¥2, as always...
No comments:
Post a Comment