In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether a ninety-minute video on demand about Hillary Clinton is subject to the financial restrictions and disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or whether the film qualifies for an exemption of either. The Court will need to balance the interest in protecting free speech with that of protecting the public from corruption and improper influence over the election. The decision will have a tremendous impact on not-for-profit organizations that publish these types of documentaries, as well as political candidates. As technology changes and continues to increase the ways in which information is distributed to the masses, cases like this one here, which attempt to define exactly what is to be regulated and how it is done, are becoming increasingly more important.This case will prove to be interesting because a ruling with Citizens United is liable to open up a floodgate of corporate spending on elections - which today is greatly limited by the McCain-Feingold act - which will have devastating consequences on our democracy. If the Court rules in favor of the Federal Election Commission, however, it could give the government greater control of the nation's news mediums (including the final frontier of the internet).
The fact that the Court picked this case in particular in regards to campaign finance reform is interesting. Given the conservative majority of the Court, one would assume that they will rule on the side of the First Amendment. This gives them the opportunity to allow corporate America to further dominate our politics.
At first glance, this case appears to be one of First Amendment rights and electioneering. On the inside, however, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission potentially holds another opportunity for rampant neoliberal economic debauchery which is the last thing this country needs during a time of rising unemployment.
No comments:
Post a Comment