I am starting new category today, on the recent US Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v FEC. The link is to the entire 183 page opinion. I haven't read all of it yet, though I have gone through the syllabus and several commentaries and opinion pieces written about the case-as well as any number of editorial cartoons.
It is a very important case, obviously. I think the decision may be correct, though I am not willing to be quoted on that yet. It does give me cause for concern that most people that like the opinion are people with whom I disagree on most issues. On the other hand, some of those opinions I general respect have not joined the knee-jerk reaction condemning the decision. Not that they don't think it will cause problems in a practical sense, but, that decision may be correct legally. I mean, I do have concern about those who are happy to accept the advantages of the corporate form, such as immunity from personal liability, but are not willing to consider the broad implications of treating a corporation as a distinct legal entity.
Not that I don't think that the influx of corporate money will not affect the electoral process. Anyone who thinks it won't is naive. In fact, it appears that Justice Kennedy, who authored the Citizens United opinion had previously voiced concerns about the affect of campaign contributions on the perceived fairness of the legal system. That is for a later post.
For now I will leave you with an ad from a campaign for parish (which means county, for those of you outside Louisiana) Coroner, for God's sake. For further information about that particular election and the "glass houses, throwing stones" aspect of the attacking candidate, see this article fromLowering the Bar, a great blog which is featured on a "widget" on the sidebar of this site.
Anyway, with the new influx of corporate money, we probably be seeing many more attack ads like this. One consolation is that they will probably have better production values.
Comments