. . . and still afraid of the decision coming down pretty soon. It’s the case about the anti-Hillary documentary from last election cycle which was produced by a corporation. How the Court rules will determine if corporations can expand their financial support of individual candidates and advertise on their behalf.
This is a big issue for me. Campaign finance – more than any other abuse of our electoral system is one that has the most potential to damage us permanently. Because once corporate money is able to drive the discussion, it will drown out all discussion of common and civic values.
In this excerpt from a NY Times editorial of September 23 on the subject, I loved what our Solicitor General said (empasis mine):
g[corporations] may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns — a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.
In an exchange this month with Chief Justice Roberts, the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, argued against expanding that narrowly defined personhood. “Few of us are only our economic interests,” she said. “We have beliefs. We have convictions.” Corporations, “engage the political process in an entirely different way, and this is what makes them so much more damagin,” she said.