An activist decision: More money, attack ads to derail democracy (Miami Herald)

[struggle4progress]

... By declaring that corporations have First Amendment rights similar to individuals, the court broke new ground that clearly rejects previous readings of the Constitution. There is simply nothing in the First Amendment that would suggest that the framers intended to protect the rights of corporations to spend freely in elections.

Further, corporations are not exactly muzzled when it comes to political races. Although they cannot contribute directly to candidates, a ban which still stands, they can fund campaign ads through political action committees that use regulated donor money.

With the new decision they are free to use corporate general treasury funds.

The Court could have upheld the right of Citizens United, a conservative group, that wanted to air the documentary in question -- a scathing attack on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign -- by striking down a narrow provision of the existing McCain-Feingold campaign spending law that contains an overly vague definition of campaign ads. Instead, the Court opened the floodgates to corporate spending in political campaigns ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/1445912.html