NPR on CU v. FEC

Feingold on Citizens United v. FEC

Senator Feingold, co-author of McCain Feingold act of 2002, speaks out about corporate spending on the senate floor.

Petition to Stop Corporate Takeover of Government

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/grayson_democracy/?rc=fb_share1

The Frightening Reality

It is popular opinion that campaign finance reform is likely necessary, but the courts disagreed. Let's take a look at why they did.

It is argued that limiting the speech of the corporation is impeaching "their" freedom of speech, and by "their" I refer to the corporation. The issue at hand here is corporate person-hood.

What bothers me is that a corporation, though granted all of the freedoms of The Constitution, are not subject to its regulation. Simply put, they receive the rights without concern for their responsibilities. It is easy to allow a corporation to speak, but it marginalizes public voice.

Ideally, I believe it should be the right of the corporation to speak, but in a representative democracy like our own, all speech must be created equal. Our democracy will face dire circumstances when money becomes the main medium for speech, and I fear that it is already becoming so.

It is idyllic to think that corporate power should be allowed for speech, but it is interesting to note that false advertisement laws do not pertain to political speech. I.E: It would be easy for Exxon Mobil to sponsor an oil-drilling candidate and say s/he was "environmentally friendly," without having to face the music of a federal regulator, because political speech is protected.

Getting back to the main point, when money becomes speech, the voice of the meek goes unfunded, in turn, going unnoticed. It is this frightening reality that allows corporate person-hood to control our political system, increasing apathy of constituencies.

The voice of the people is silenced through corporate speech, and surely threatens a representative democracy like our own, especially when our representatives are products of corporate speech in and of themselves.

President Obama Critiques the Citizens United v. FEC Ruling

President Obama took time to address the recent Supreme Court decision,

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."


It is clear that Obama sees error in the decision. This is a calling from our president. We must all write our senators and attempt to overturn this decision. Stand up against corporate speech!

More opnion polling on Citizens United

Before we get into the polling I think there needs to be something said about the S. Court decision and its affects on legislation. In order for campaign finance legislation to become law there must be an accord from both sides of the aisle. The reason for this is that although both parties adhere to their own in house rule, when it comes to campaign finance, both parties must abide by federal legislation. BCRA, or the McCain-Feingold bill, was mainly sponsored by a member of both the parties indicating the importance of bipartisan support. In addition the mere idea of a politician regulating money he/she receives seems like a bad idea to begin with. So when campaign finance legislation is passed into law and the S. Court rules it unconstitutional on the grounds of first amendment violation it sends a message to legislators, either on purposeful or not, that their efforts are illegitimate and pointless.

A September 9, 2009 interview with John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) on the
Supreme Court arguments on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Does anyone believe that the rights of average citizens to be heard in Washington would not be over ridden by massive , unlimited campaign contributions? Corporations and Unions? That is a disconnect from reality! We saw the corruption, and we acted and that's why congress acted. Not in congress's self interest but because it was a demand on the part of the American people for us to act and we did. - McCain

And if they do it strictly on a first amendment ground, not allowing us to legislate, they will disable the Government. The representatives of the people of this country from ever fixing the campaign finance system. That could be the result of this, we could have no ability to change it at all. - Feingold

--Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing
From: Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll...

...Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits..."

How do Americans feel about campaign finance? (Gallup)

How do Americans feel about campaign finance? Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

Specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.

Bottom line, prior to now, while corporations and unions could run issue-based ads, they could not spend a penny on candidates, except through political action committees. Now that they can run such ads, the country could be in store for major changes in the way campaigns are conducted. Does the ruling square with Americans' views on campaign contribution limits? In some respects, yes. In others, it depends on whether Americans decide that independent expenditures are tantamount to political "contributions" or are merely free speech.