|To the Editor: Campaign contribution ruling questioned|
|Written by Sally Medbourn Mott|
|Wednesday, 27 January 2010 09:47|
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
|'Actors' lap up stardom
04/19/2014 | DAVID DUPONT Sentinel Arts & Entertainment Editor
Margot (performed by Madison Zavitz) interacts with Bruiser (performed by Nugget). (Enoc [ ... ]
|Elmwood graduate Trevor Lee shares his Yosemite experience|
04/19/2014 | JORDAN CRAVENS Sentinel Staff Writer
Trevor Lee has traveled to 40 states, and most recently spent 10 months at Yosemite Nati [ ... ]