The Supreme Court of the United States’ recent ruling, that loosened the Federal Elections Committee restrictions placed on Corporations, Labor Organizations and National Banks, has been welcomed by some, yet slammed by the Obama administration. The 5-4 decision overturned a previous vote that specified that these three groups could not release political messages within 30 days of federal elections and that only money from their Political Action Committees, or funds set aside exclusively for political expenditures, could be used in these campaigns. This would essentially grant corporations and labor unions the same rights as individuals, when it came to expressing political opinions, which the prevailing opinion held was protected under the first Amendment right to freedom of speech. The dissent contended that this represented a misguided assumption that corporations and labor unions should have the same rights as citizens, who vote and can stand for elected offices. It is true that citizenship is a right granted to individuals, yet it is also an individual responsibility, a vital aspect of which is not present in labor unions or corporations.
Many feel that this will cause Members of Congress to be more conscious of the impact of their voting record on big business, as larger corporations now have a more potent influence in campaigns. This could be especially troubling, as now multi-national corporations, unlike foreign nationals, would be permitted to participate politically. Yet any action on the part of corporations could severely politicize the relationship between companies and their shareholders. Would investors then chose to sell stock in corporations they feel support or oppose a political point of view that they do not feel they could support financially? The reality is that while politics can affect business, it is stability that allows corporations to concentrate on their balances sheets. The only real measure of worth for shareholders is profitability so companies would most likely either choose not to weigh in and risk investments or simply support the incumbent candidate.
Perhaps it is not a wonder local television stations and local public relations firms are licking their chops in hopes that mid-sized corporations, which would not typically invest in a Public Affairs Committee, might now seek to spend money in order to influence local candidates. Perhaps soon political messages will become as prominent as direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising or infomercials that plague the television audience. In a society where news is 24 hours and Youtube.com and social networking sites have come to dominate traditional forums for political expression, this decision may not have such a sever impact after all. In many areas individuals receive the news from the Internet, not television or print just as one example. Anyone concerned that big labor and big business will gain an oppressing advantage in public opinion, need only look at the success of grass roots organizations such as the Obama campaign and the Tea Parties.
