The 5-4 ruling by the US Supremem Court — which dismissed the idea that corporate wealth could distort the political debate and rejected corporate restrictions as"censorship" — immediately reshapes the campaign battlefield 10 months
before November's high-stakes congressional elections. It also threatens state and local campaign-finance laws across the nation. The Supreme Court's conservative majority based its opinion on free-speech grounds.
President Obama— who refused taxpayer money during the 2008 general election campaign so he could raise four times more than the $85 million he would have
received in public funds — said the ruling would lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." He promised to work with Congress on a "forceful" response to the court's ruling.
The court's decision is the latest from the high court and other
federal judges across the nation to reverse federal and state campaign
spending rules established in the decades after the Watergate scandal,
which led to the resignation of President Nixon in 1974. On Wednesday, federal court in Arizona struck down a key part of that state's public-funding system for candidates as unconstitutional.
Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called Thursday's opinion "a positive for the political process." The group spent $144.5 million on lobbying in 2009 and more than $35 million on advertising and outreach efforts in the 2008 election.
Its president, Tom Donohue, recently attacked Democratic proposals on health care and climate change, and pledged this fall to "highlight ...candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda and hold accountable those who don't."
For the complete report: It's a new era for campaign spending - USATODAY.com
before November's high-stakes congressional elections. It also threatens state and local campaign-finance laws across the nation. The Supreme Court's conservative majority based its opinion on free-speech grounds.
President Obama— who refused taxpayer money during the 2008 general election campaign so he could raise four times more than the $85 million he would have
received in public funds — said the ruling would lead to a "stampede of special interest money in our politics." He promised to work with Congress on a "forceful" response to the court's ruling.
The court's decision is the latest from the high court and other
federal judges across the nation to reverse federal and state campaign
spending rules established in the decades after the Watergate scandal,
which led to the resignation of President Nixon in 1974. On Wednesday, federal court in Arizona struck down a key part of that state's public-funding system for candidates as unconstitutional.
Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called Thursday's opinion "a positive for the political process." The group spent $144.5 million on lobbying in 2009 and more than $35 million on advertising and outreach efforts in the 2008 election.
Its president, Tom Donohue, recently attacked Democratic proposals on health care and climate change, and pledged this fall to "highlight ...candidates who support a pro-jobs agenda and hold accountable those who don't."
For the complete report: It's a new era for campaign spending - USATODAY.com
No comments:
Post a Comment