Image : http://www.flickr.com
Supreme Court Justice Robert narrowly approved new rules for federal spending campaign on Thursday in a ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy for the 5-4 majority, "Our nation is mentioned dynamic and informative articles should not circumvent the restrictions onerous for 'exercise of their First Amendment rights. "
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion and said: "In a democratic society, which limits the long-standing consensus on the need for corporate campaignThe costs expected to exceed the application of rules of judicial wood. "
President Obama said. "The Supreme Court gave the go-ahead for a new onslaught of special interest money in our politics," Obama said. "This is a great victory for oil is great for Wall Street banks, insurance companies and other powerful interests that every day Marshal Their power in Washington stifle the voices of everyday Americans."
Conservatives praised the decision saying it was longlate.
"Participating in the Supreme Court's decision today, a victory for the First Amendment and the right of all Americans in the political process," said Theodore Olson, argued the successful case of the conservative Citizens United.
This ruling tilts century old laws and changed the landscape of the campaign with a greater purchasing power for non-profit companies and nonprofit organizations alike, and allow special interest money and safe in the currentColor for the election results. This highlights the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
legislative attempts to regulate campaign finance began in 1867, but were not successfully implemented until 1972, required when the Federal Election Campaign Act (Feca), candidates for all the campaign contributions and expenditures disclosed. In 1974 this law was amended and the Federal Election Commission (FEC was created) attempts to regulate individual contributions$ 1,000, the so-called soft money and money from political action committees to $ 5,000 labeled, hard cash.
In analyzing the law, the Supreme Court in companies and other interest groups as individuals who are unsure are looking for. A company, of which there are many ways, a legal person, with management and employees may be resolved only to shareholders. A company may or may not pay taxes, according to the company address. This gives theseMake unlimited power, unlimited resources with color the opinions of voters and potentially change the outcome of our elections in their favor. People on the other hand have little to defend. But we see more people gather, such as tea-party group to promote their special interest groups. And how will this affect our democracy? We'll find out probably in the autumn, because these laws are effective medium-term elections of 2010.
See Also : Proposition 8
No comments:
Post a Comment