Our nation has a history of historic decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. Think of Marbury vs. Madison…the Dred Scott case…Roe vs. Wade…all of these have had far reaching consequences. They don't come around all the time and it is rare that a Supreme Court decision truly has an effect on our daily lives, but last month the Supreme Court rendered yet another decision that has the potential to really change things up. In a landmark 5-4 decision that severely split the justices, the Court ruled that corporations are entitled to free speech rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Take a minute to contemplate the potential implications of such a verdict. Has the court given us yet another medium to more easily express our political viewpoints and thus help democracy? It is rare that one can argue that rights to free speech should not be extended; after all it is only government that can intervene on rights in the first place. However, we must consider whether a corporation is deserving of these rights at all. While a corporation might be made up of people, it is not a person. A corporation has but one goal in its existence, profit. People however, have more than just a profit in mind (ok, I grant you there are some soulless bastards out there), especially with regards to their governance. That is what we must keep in mind when we ask ourselves, should corporations be able to be limited in campaign spending? This is where I will take a position most people consider liberal (yes, liberal) and say that yes, corporations should be limited in their giving. My reasons should hopefully be obvious. We are currently in a period where lobbing influences and money in general have reached sky-high proportions in Washington. The ability for a politician to survive is literally dependent on his ability to raise funds, a fact taught in a simple Political Science 101 course. This is known by even the most absent political observer. In this age, do you honestly think that increasing the ability of a company to spend money in a campaign to a literally unlimited amount is a wise decision? If someone offered you a ride to see Clemson play in a bowl game for free you'd thank them and probably offer to at least help split gas. Now imagine that another person offers you a ride in a nice jet to and from the game, a free ticket on the fifty yard line, and a free jersey signed by the whole team. Which offer are you gonna take? Both are nice, but they just can't be compared. Welcome to the brave new world of modern politics people, given to us courtesy of the United States Supreme Court.
Be the first to comment on this story