How Many Times Can I Get Twisted on This Issue?

Whoa, hold the phone...I may have jumped the gun not once, but twice, on this Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate involvement in elections and campaigning.

Brad Smith at NRO explains where many, including the President, have been wrong about this ruling.

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." (emphasis mine)

Interesting...so at least I know that my concerns of foreign corporations (and governments through those corporations) will not be pumping money into campaigns to wield influence over our nation's politics and policies.

That actually explains why Justice Alito said "not true", because what Obama said regarding foreign corporations is not true. I'm definitely relieved to see this.

(h/t Mason Conservative)

Sometimes, You Gotta Admit When You Are Wrong

A good "blogosphere buddy" of mine, Zen (whom I am well-acquainted with through the old Daily Whackjob blog), and I have been battling back and forth over the recent Supreme Court ruling on the rights of corporations and unions when it comes to campaign financing and advertising.

While I still stand that CEOs and the like should not be restricted because of their status and resources, I was convinced by a few of Zen's other points that this was a bad ruling. He brought these two issues to my attention...

- Apparently, this ruling is now putting restrictions placed by the states at risk (federal rulings are supposed to supercede state laws unless deemed unconstitutional). Obviously, it would make sense that nationwide elections, such as the presidential elections, should be federally ruled and regulated from a financing perspective. However, states should be able to decide how their statewide elections are financed and regulated. This ruling effectively throws many state laws and restrictions out the door. This is a case where the federal government needs to step back and step out of the affairs of the individual states.

- The second, and more dangerous issue (in my opinion), is the fact that global corporations now can influence our elections. This means that corporations in foreign lands can influence our elections, and this also opens an avenue for foreign nations themselves to have direct influence. I'm surprised that some on the left ("we are part of a global community") don't see this as a good thing....ok, I kid, I kid. In all seriousness, this is a dangerous precedent to set and it actually makes me quite a bit nervous.

So kudos to Zen for turning me around on this issue. While he and I will probably have several more arguments to have on different points...I can at least admit where I may have been blind to certain things.

I do agree with him on another point...this ruling has opened up a Pandora's Box of potential problems going forward.

Mixed Thoughts on Today's Supreme Court Ruling

Look, I'm all for free speech and I believe that it was a good thing for the 1st Amendment that corporations, unions, and businesses have the ability to participate in donating and advertising for political campaigns. We already knew they were doing things behind the scenes anyway, so now we have it all out in the open as to which business supports which candidate.

My problem is not with the ruling, it's with how irresponsible I believe that these corporations and unions will be with their advertising. Bigger budgets equal more advertising, and I'm not looking forward to spending the fall of 2012 watching commercial after commercial after commercial, over and over and over. I have a feeling this will become the norm for a while.

However, as I said, at least now we'll know who supports what (without the disclaimer of speculation). At least we'll have some transparency on this matter. It will also lead to some interesting posturing in future elections, as a big corporation or industry who supports one candidate may find themselves being targeted if the opposing candidate wins...or if that industry's union supports the opposition.

Should be interesting...