Essay about Super Freedom: More Money Less Speech

1967 Words 8 Pages
During the 2012 republican caucus in Iowa, local television stations received a huge gift from the Supreme Court. Less than two years early the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee gave large corporations, labor unions, and trade associations a break through its interpretation of political spending as a form of protected free speech. Additionally the new “super” political action committees that formed following the decision allowed contributors to donate as much money as they pleased without any stringent disclosure. Ad revenue sky rocked for television stations in the most competitive election states but the rest of America lost. By striping the Federal Election Committee of its most important …show more content…
Finally the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act brought modifications to protect against the influential powers of misleading political advertisements by banning electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election. The political conversation of any one party was equalized with campaign spending existing in a moderately regulated manner. PAC disclosure rules similarly made more aggressive campaign spending tactics transparent to the public. This allowed consumers to know how their favorite companies donated in politics and to decide whether they still wanted to support the companies with their service. Several key changes from Supreme Court decisions in 2010 quickly deregulated this system and created an environment that unevenly favored the political speech of those with money. The two indispensable concepts rooted in the 2010 changes to campaign reform were that corporations are people and money is free speech. United States Code establishes that the word person in the Constitution includes corporations. Although they are not living, corporations enjoy certain protections that human citizens have such as free speech and equality. This concept of corporate personhood has been very controversial as it relates to the 1st and 14th amendment. Corporations do not inherently have ethical values and can effectively shield their management from the legal and financial

Related Documents