By Muriel Kane
A federal judge has struck down a 1905 law which prevented corporations from making direct donations to political campaigns. Although the case is likely to wind up in the Supreme Court, there is already speculation that it could completely upend a campaign funding system already in disarray as a result of last year's Citizens United decision.
According to the New York Times, the decision arose out of the criminal trial of two Virginia businessmen accused of illegally using using company funds to reimburse their employees for making $186,600 in donations to Hillary Clinton in 2006 and 2008.
Federal Judge James C. Cacheris drew upon the Citizens United decision to find that if corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as citizens to make outside expenditures on behalf of candidates, then the "logic is inescapable" that they also have the same right to make direct donations, up to the $2500 limit imposed on individual donors.
"(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," Cacheris wrote. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."
The Times speculated that the effect might be even more far-reaching, noting that "some election lawyers said that the decision, if upheld, could lead to the collapse of all legal limits on campaign donations, whether from corporations or individuals."
Legal experts consulted by the paper, however, pointed out that the decision ignores a 2003 Supreme Court case which upheld the ban on direct corporate contributions and was not explicitly overturned by Citizens United.
“The District Court is acting way outside of its bounds,” Tara Molloy of the Campaign Legal Center toldBloomberg News. “Not only it is a bad decision, but it’s a fairly shocking decision as well.”
Prosecutors are reviewing the ruling and may decide to appeal. Meanwhile, the two individuals accused in the case are awaiting trial on the remaining charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and causing false statements.
2 comments:
so your boss at work or the owner of a large corporation decides whom to endorse for a myriad of reasons, one could be a government perk the other personal or moral beliefs, and then imposes their views on employee's, claiming and showing employee's who has been decided as their right candidate according to anothers opinion....and these paid workers being told what to do at work, they should feel obliged or experience a bit of pressure to follow what their "boss" says in order to keep their job..and a civil discussion at work on politics will commence? I could swear many businesses don't allow or enjoy political and religious discussion at work or with clients/customers as employee's are to not engage in debate or arguments.....Its not going to impose on others or scare people from their freedom of speech (having pressure on who to vote for via your "boss")? Besides voting is a private issue, and none of your bosses business anyway right? None of this sort of government covert action or ruling is a new trend or such- just think in our free country lists of people had no rights based on their skin color, who they have sex with or their gender, until the past century-why is that?
And is true quite a few federally registered major corporations were sold to foreign interest- so to think here- if they are owned by non Americans- then outside interest can now play a larger role in controlling elections. Nifty. Sounds fishy-I know.... lets call that government agency and complain to get some help...lol
so your boss at work or the owner of a large corporation decides whom to endorse for a myriad of reasons, one could be a government perk the other personal or moral beliefs, and then imposes their views on employee's, claiming and showing employee's who has been decided as their right candidate according to anothers opinion....and these paid workers being told what to do at work, they should feel obliged or experience a bit of pressure to follow what their "boss" says in order to keep their job..and a civil discussion at work on politics will commence? I could swear many businesses don't allow or enjoy political and religious discussion at work or with clients/customers as employee's are to not engage in debate or arguments.....Its not going to impose on others or scare people from their freedom of speech (having pressure on who to vote for via your "boss")? Besides voting is a private issue, and none of your bosses business anyway right? None of this sort of government covert action or ruling is a new trend or such- just think in our free country lists of people had no rights based on their skin color, who they have sex with or their gender, until the past century-why is that?
And is true quite a few federally registered major corporations were sold to foreign interest- so to think here- if they are owned by non Americans- then outside interest can now play a larger role in controlling elections. Nifty. Sounds fishy-I know.... lets call that government agency and complain to get some help...lol
Post a Comment