The Supreme Court overturned critical portions of the McCain-Feingold, the controversial spending limits/get evil Corporations out of government bill, when it held, in a 5-4 decision, that political speech shouldn't be abridged based on a case where they were asked to decide if a strongly political documentary focused on Hillary Clinton should be considered a political ad .
At issue is the restriction, placed by McCain/Feingold, placed upon Corporations, including Non Profits and Unions, from airing candidate support or attack ads within a fixed time frame prior to an election.
The left wing frames the decision as opening the doors for full corporate takeover of the Republic. Obama scolded the Supreme Court on its decision during his State of the Union, invoking "Big Oil" bogeymen once again.
The right wing frames the decision as a victory for 1st Amendment rights.
So which side is correct?
For all practical purposes, McCain/Feingold was DOA when it was passed, because everyone had a "get out of jail free" card due to the lack of restrictions on "527" political organizations, so named for the tax exempt status of "political organizations" as defined by section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. One has to ask themself, "What do you expect when you force whores to cut their pay? They won't do it until they have a ready alternative".
Should corporations be allowed to politically support their allies or attack their enemies as a singular citizen is able? On the face of it, is it the structure? Corporations? Partnerships? LLC's?
Since corporations are really merely an aggregation of individual owners bound together for a commercial purpose, as are Unions, although their memberships are not owners, and Non Profits are aggregations of individuals bound together to proselytize a particular point of view or value system, is the only rationale for discrimination against their political communication that they are too rich? Or that they are a voluntary grouping of people? What about rich individuals?
It's not clear to me what the real issue is.
The left wing states that the huge amount of money available to spend is a practical reason to restrict political speech. That makes one ask "why just corporations, then? Or Unions? Why not rich people?"
The right wing claims that media corporations are not bound, due to their claims of first amendment rights, to this restriction, so that the restriction is imposed only on Non Media Corporations, and thus is unconstitutional, in that the law, as written, creates an arbitrary prohibition against political speech for some corporations but not others. That is an interesting take.
I don't hate lobbyists or PACs of any particular flavor. At their best, they serve to educate our rulers, who rarely today have any practical business experience in our real world, and as such, are often blind to the unintended consequences of their actions driven by their natural political pandering. At their worst, they can be a bit sleazy. One thing I know for a fact, though, is that Lobbyists Love Big Powerful Government.
With McCain/Feingold, our rulers told us that they were weak whoreswho needed discipline. Then they passed a law that contained a glaring 527 loophole gimpball for "people". Nice. They cannot keep their snouts out of troughs if their lives depended on it, yet we want them to govern us.
Why is there so much money in politics today? It is because these folks can grant monopoly powers to people or corporations or Unions or various other Special Interest Groups, or they can erect huge and arbitrary barriers to entry to restrict the free market.
As long as they have that power, people and groups of people will try to take advantage of that fact. The last thing our glorious rulers want to change is that fact, because they become wealthier or more powerful with it in place. Take the power out of government, and the money will evaporate. The more powerful, the more money will be attracted to it. It really is that simple.
What do you think? What is YOUR logic for restricting political speech?