US Court Say’s Corp.’s are Persons

Source: Al Jazeera
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/americas/2010/01/21/us-court-says-corps-are-persons

The US Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on Thursday that over-turned the way American election campaigns are financed.

The Court’s been considering whether to end long-standing limits on corporate and labour union spending in US political campaigns.


BIG BUSINESS

You have to understand that in America, political campaigns are big business.

Literally - they cost millions of dollars!

The 2008 contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain for the White House was the most expensive so far with both candidates raising more than a billion dollars between them.

Much of that money went on relentless TV ads.

Dave Levinthal from the political research group Center For Responsive Politics told me:

“This is a right it’s considered freedom of speech to be able to take money and give it to a political candidate in support of that candidate. For example if you or I want to give money to a politician we can only give twenty four hundred US dollars during one election cycle. But if you’re a corporation you can’t even give money, you have to do it through a second party and there’s lots of rules and restrictions.”


MOVIE

The case in the Supreme Court centred on a mini-film called "Hillary the Movie".

It was made by a conservative advocacy group that’s funded in part by money from big business.

The idea was to attack Hillary Clinton during the primary stages of her 2008 Presidential run.

The Federal Election Commission banned it from broadcast close to voting day saying Hillary the Movie amounted to a campaign advertisement.

The producers thought otherwise, sued, and their case was taken up by the Court - though the Justices took it upon themselves to broaden their inquiry and review over a century’s worth of campaign finance law.

At the heart of the case should corporations be treated as persons under the US constitution and allowed to spend huge amounts of cash on political campaigns at state, Congressional and Presidential level.


FOR AND AGAINST

Those in favour argued before the bench that not to include corporations would be a violation of the First Amendment which guarantees free speech.

Those against claimed it would be devastating for American democracy with a flood of corporate sponsored TV ads with big business way outspending individuals.

Craig Holman from the not-for-profit consumer lobby group Public Citizen put it this way.

“Corporations who care about defeating the healthcare bill are going to get their way in 2010. Corporations who think global warming is a myth are going to get their way in 2010. Corporations who don’t want to see the banks and financial services regulated are going to get their way in 2010. This is devastating.”


HERE COME THE ADS

Americans won't have to wait too long to see the effect of the Supreme Court's opinion put into practice.

The next big election here is the crucial mid-term congressional elections in November ... elections that are likely to set the political tone for the final two years of Barack Obama’s first term in office.