The Supreme Court rarely attracts as much attention as Congress does; even when it makes huge decisions, the media buzzes about the Court for a day or two, maybe a week—and then moves back to its pet, the president, and to his friends, Pelosi and her Democratic yes-men (and women). While one of the Supreme Court’s most recent and controversial cases of this year, Citizens United v. FEC, caused quite an uproar, it is quickly taking a backseat (as is everything else) to health care and an otherwise revised, perhaps less-partisan (not likely) agenda from President Obama.
Before this case makes its way to the shadows, take a moment to think about—and perhaps even celebrate—the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision. In essence, the case overturns a precedent (McConnell v. FEC) which formerly hushed the speech of America’s corporations in the political process. The new decision allows both corporations and nonprofit organizations to use their own money to campaign for their favored candidates. In other words, both unions and corporations are now allowed to pay to advertise for their candidates.
Unions have played a huge part in the political process for decades. Unions are groups of people looking out for their own best interest. Corporations are also comprised of groups of people looking out for their own best interests. Why should unions get to benefit from “free speech” while the corporations are hushed? This decision overturns an unfair, activist precedent—a precedent which chooses who gets free speech and who doesn’t. As noted by the decision itself, “government may not restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others.” Government may not impose restrictions on speakers based on the monetary status of the speakers, and speech is not bad because it comes from one person who is more disliked by government officials than someone else. The American public, thanks to the Bill of Rights, has the right to gather (and disperse) information from the widest number of sources.
Speech cannot be corrupt just because it comes from someone with whom the governing body (whether it be liberal or conservative) heavily disagrees. Political speech is protected under the first amendment, and neither elected officials nor the leftist media (who should be jumping up and down but instead are angry that they have to share their “free speech” with others) can pick and choose which group should be able to exercise that right and which group should be banned.
