I’m missing something; perhaps someone can help me out.
In federal election campaigns individuals may only donate up to $2300 to a candidate. The Supreme Court says corporations are just like individuals. The analyses of the decision say corporations will be able to spend great amounts.
But if corporations are just like individuals, how come corporations aren’t also limited to $2300?
When you have a government of the corporations, by the corporations,
for the corporations then the corporations can do pretty much whatever they want.
Boy, you’ve got that right, SnoLepard!
My understanding is that this isn’t about giving to campaigns or candidates or parties directly, which is still restricted. This seems to be about separate ads, not coordinated with campaigns, like the current 527s. They can now be specific, and can be run just before an election, which makes them hard to counter. They would have to say who funded them, too.
“The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The decision, which applies to independent spending that is not coordinated with candidates, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.”
“The justices struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
It leaves in place a federal prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions and didn’t touch the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties. Nor did it disturb companies’ right to solicit voluntary contributions to political action committees that can donate directly to candidates.
Corporations and unions would still have to identify the sources of money for their political activity — a provision of current law that the court upheld in an 8-1 vote.”
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/22231150056newsstate01-22-10.htm
Michelle’s got it right: there’s nothing right now preventing you, Ken, from buying an ad on television saying you don’t want Candidate X to be elected (as long as you disclose whether anyone else gave you money for the ad). In that situation, you wouldn’t be giving directly to a candidate, and the $2,300 limit wouldn’t apply.
At least, that’s my understanding.