"Overturning a century-old restriction," the Los Angeles Times reported in February, "the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections. In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to 1st Amendment free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates."
The Associated Press wrote that the court "has opened the door to a new era of big and possibly shadowy election spending, rolled back anti-corruption laws and emboldened critics of fundraising limits to press on. In the middle of all this will be voters, trying to figure out who's telling the truth. The opinion represents the latest development in the cycle of scandal-law-loophole that has typified the United States' approach to campaign finance regulation."
The Wall Street Journal talked to big donors and found "corporations, labor unions and other political entities are gearing up to play a larger role in influencing elections in 2010 and beyond." The New York Times wrote "the Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election." Roll Call reports that "Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill pledged to explore legislative alternatives" to counteract the ruling.
Learning Activity
Assign students to write a report of at least 150 words that cites at least three resources and addresses the following essential questions for critical thinking (you may add or substitute others:
What is the purpose and history of campaign finance reform legislation?
What are the arguments for the majority decision?
What are the arguments for the minority opinion?
What is your opinion on this decision and why?
Pathfinder
Click the Topics Search tab > Type "Supreme Court AND Campaign Finance Reform"
