|To the Editor: Campaign contribution ruling questioned|
|Written by Sally Medbourn Mott|
|Wednesday, 27 January 2010 08:47|
Recently, five of nine justices of the Supreme Court overturned some century old federal restrictions on campaign contributions.
One concern the justices had was that "freedom of speech" rights were denied to corporations if their contributions to candidates' campaigns were limited.
It is now the law of the land that anyone, including foreign controlled multinational corporations, can make unlimited contributions to the PAC (and thus, indirectly, to the candidate) of their choice.
Is it really in the country's best interests to allow foreign multinationals to influence, if not determine, U.S. election outcomes?
Might corporate and foreign multinational pressure already be influencing Supreme Court decisions?
According to dissenting Justice Stevens: "Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled . . . it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."
And: "The court's blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the amendment was meant to serve."
Sally Medbourn Mott
Front Page Stories
|Faculty, Mazey face off
12/06/2013 | DAVID DUPONT, Sentinel Staff Writer
File photo. BGSU President Mary Ellen Mazey. (Photo: Enoch Wu/Sentinel-Tribune) A [ ... ]
|Perrysburg teachers approve contract|
12/06/2013 | ALEX ASPACHER, Sentinel Staff Writer
PERRYSBURG - The teachers union ratified a new contract Thursday night, which may be a [ ... ]