This Blog Post Paid for By Exxon-Mobil

As if the hype surrounding Senator-elect Scott Brown from Massachusetts wasn't enough to stir the political cauldron this week,the Supreme Court has overturned two precedents today when they ruled against limits on corporate political spending. Though Supreme Court justices are to remain apolitical, it's no secret that this decision came down to a party line vote, with the five conservative judges (Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas) outvoting the Court's four liberal justices (Stecens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor). Even a year after he left office, our country cannot seem to escape the stranglehold of the second Bush administration, which appointed conservative justices Roberts and Alito to the Court.

Ultimately, this decision will have two major effects on political campaigns: the strengthening of the political capital of corporations and unions, and the weakening of the Political Action Committee system.

If you think that corporate marketing is too ingrained in our society now, you haven't seen anything yet. You thought that the "Poulan Weed-Eater Independence Bowl" was ridiculous? Just wait until this summer, when you'll not only see political advertisements from candidates themselves, but also advertisements funded by corporations such as Exxon-Mobil (oil), Pfizer (pharmaceutical), Citigroup (banking), and AIG (insurance).

"The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907." - From the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens

Now, I'm not usually a person that evokes the "slippery slope" argument, but let's take a look at the logical progression of this argument. So we start with the fact that individuals are allowed to contribute directly to political candidates because it is deemed as a form of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. As of today, it has been determined that it is the First Amendment right of corporations and unions to directly contribute to political campaign advertisements. While corporations still cannot directly contribute to the candidates themselves, I argue that this is most certainly the next step in this logic, and at that point, I believe political campaigns will lose any sense of authenticity and credibility.

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." From the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens.

By rejecting the limits of political campaign spending by corporations, the Supreme Court is also rejecting the rationale of political actions committees or PACs. These committee are set up in order that union members and shareholders in large corporations are not forced to support, through union dues and corporate profits political causes or political candidates that they may strongly oppose. Not all union members are Democrats and not all shareholders are Republicans; however, because of this ruling, the contributions of unions and corporations towards political advertisements will make it appear this way. What kind of freedom of speech is that?

I'll conclude with a final quote from the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens, whom I think makes my argument most clear.

"At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."