Cash Cow

Friday, June 29, 2007


In a 5-4 ruling this week, the Supreme Court deemed a key part of the McCain Feingold Act unconstitutional. BYU Political scientist David Magleby explains why the decision is likely to open the floodgates of ad spending by interest groups.

Comments [4]

Tom Howe from Oxford, NC

Wisconson Right to Life is a "corporation" only because of our byzantine tax law. It's sad that many people who call themselves liberal support freedom of speech only for those they agree with. Every law aimed at campaign finance control has made matters worse. When will we learn?

Jul. 02 2007 01:16 PM
J Satin from New York City

I was disappointed that there was no mention of the fact that the media - print, tv and radio as well as electronic, will all benefit very much from this decision. They all make millions from these ads and will now be able to make even more since the corporate/union money will now be able to return to the front within the 2 months before the elections.
Their influence in this corporate loving court cannot be under estimated. Bush Sr and Jr would never have nominated justices that were not corporate friendly.
Should I be surprised that this was not mentioned? PBS corporate "underwriters" go a long way to guarantee a more corporate-friendly presentation of the facts.

Jul. 01 2007 03:21 PM
Terry McKenna from Dover NJ

how is it that conservatives, who suggest that they support an interpretation of the constitution that hews more closely to the original intention of the founding fathers, have campaigned so furiously in favor of the free speech of corporations, or what used to be called artificial persons? but even more so, how have restrictions on advertisements been considered a restriction on free speech. the original intention of the first amendment was to prevent anyone from being arrested for hurling invective on the government. and, no matter what the restrictions on advertisments, it is pretty clear that the right to call geoge bush a creep remains protected.

this court is as much an interventionist court as the more liberal courts that ruled from the 1940 until ronald reagan.

Jul. 01 2007 12:23 PM
Grant Garber from WUNC

I thought it appalling the Supreme Court would protect the free-speech rights of corporations. What's next? Will it protect their freedom of religion too? A corporation's raison d'etre is to make money, so if government taxes its profits, won't it violate the company's freedom of religion? When a corporation, which is a fictional person, worships money as god, government taxes will interrupt its freedom of worship. If fictional people deserve freedom of speech, they also have a right to freedom of religion. How about that for a reductio ad absurdum?

Grant Garber
Henderson, NC

Jun. 30 2007 09:00 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.