Thursday.....Politics.....Arms Race

The Supreme Court (Kennedy with the Originalists on this one) gave the ok for corporations...and unions, to spend money on political candidates; as much as they want and whenever they want. Democrats are unhappy for, according to them, it diminishes the average citizen's opinion, but this was not a concern with MoveOn's 501 (C-4) influence in the last election or, for that matter, with public opinion in many of the issues at the forefront today. Corporations, those who want to enter this area, have the money for such advertising, where unions have to enter a spending race. The case had its impetus with a group called Citizens United that produced a film critical of Hilary Clinton and wanted to air it on cable channels using video on demand, during last year's primary campaign. They were stopped (see www.citizensunited.org for their films.) It'll be a whole new ballgame come this fall, and the Democratic Congress is already trying to come up new and innovative ways to skirt the Court's decision. I don't relish the thought of the company that I work for backing certain candidates but that is their right. I would not agree on the candidates that most unions would back, but they have rights also. If American analytical skills continue to improve, this decision will benefit the Republican Party. If we revert to wallowing in a sound-bite mentality, the voter will simply fall for condescending political ads. Corporations that depend on the loyalty of its customers may find themselves in a precarious position of backing candidates that may be the target of large citizens revolt movements. Some candidates may not welcome union support, outside of their union halls, for the same reason. The Hillary film, may be shown, as well as films on Barack Obama's birth certificate, but so might Hollywood's various offerings, and this is their forte. People may watch more television to see the jousting, or they may turn the tube off because of it. Ultimately, the decision had to come down this way. McCain-Feingold did not foresee the consequences of its attempts to soften corporate influence, for corporations that owned media outlets, or were media corporations, could present their opinions freely under McCain/Feingold, while corporations with opposing viewpoints could not; an unfair advantage that was abolished in this court decision. Conservatives who can see no further, and care for nothing more, than a political advantage in the next election, may rue the day of this decision just as they may have to backtrack from the celebrations over the Massachusetts Senate election if moderates use the result as a spring board in constructing a party platform. Ultimately, this was a decision that may or may not benefit conservatives and traditionalists, but it does return us to consistency to constitutional principles.