The [Supreme] Court ruled in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission that government limits on corporate-funded, independent political broadcasts during elections constituted a violation of free speech.
The victory, everyone agrees, will change the face of federal campaign financing.
continued...
The case formed after Citizens United wanted to pay to air "Hillary: the Movie," a critical biopic of Hillary Clinton, on a cable pay-per-view system during her 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. But under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), Citizens United, which takes in both corporate and private funding, was barred from airing the film just before the primaries.
The Court, in its 5-4 decision, ruled that Citizens United's right to purchase the time to play its film during the primary was protected by the First Amendment. But more importantly, it also struck down the BCRA provision that prevented non-profits, corporations and unions from buying advertising within 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before a general election.
So is this good or bad? I am not really sure to be honest.
In 2008 I found it highly questionable that "Hillary: the Movie" was censored but all the MMMOMs (Michael Moore Movie of the Month) could be released/shown/aired whenever it best served the Democratic Party best. So in that regard I think justice would be served by admitting that the censorship was wrong. That and going back in time and letting this movie air.
However I am a little concerned about what else this decision means. A little concerned that we may have opened a Pandora's Box of corporate political adds and overly partisan media coverage. Though as long as they let MSNBC tote its sad "news" programs along I guess it might not be that different.
Conservatives have been pushing to clean up the election process by reducing the impact that big lobbyists and unions can have on elections, which in turn will reduce back-scratching and pork spending on special interests. This ruling may undo all of that. It doesn't matter if you limit campaign spending, if at the same time you allow unions and corporations to purchase add time and openly allow political propaganda to broadcast and portray themselves as "news".
Again we will have to wait and see how and if this changes things. It might not make much difference, but the possibility for this to hurt the conservative cause of limiting government is there.
So in a way it was a big win for a conservative message against unfair and, as the court ruled, illegal liberal censorship... but possibly at the cost of some the conservative ideals that message sought to illuminate.
So what do you think about it?
