Finally, just what we needed has been given clearance from the Supreme Court. A corporation can spend money on campaign ads for or against a candidate during an election cycle as long as they do not contribute to a political campaign. Why do you ask, according to the Supreme Court money is free speech in 1975’s “Buckley v. Valeo” argument because as we all know money is power and power is a voice for free speech in this country.
When the Supreme Court handed down the ruling on “Hillary the Movie” stating it did not violate campaign financing rules the floodgates were open for corporate spending, using free speech as the tool to argue. In todays political scene the Presidential campaigns are having to raise not millions but at least a billion to win an election to a position that pays a meager 400 thousand dollars a year. The question that comes to mind with all this money floating around is “Who actually wins?” Not the common man or women working everyday to make ends meet. I have to assume it is the corporations with an agenda end up winning. Spending their money on candidates that will work for their interests regardless of what constituents want in these politicians back yard.
With so much money going to political campaigns how can candidates say they are working for their constituents regardless of where the millions upon millions of dollars came from. I had one candidate last year tell me that he does take money from special interest groups and lobbyists but informs them up front they will not receive special favors when he wins the election. Can this be possible, can a politician not be bought off with those campaign funds received by lobbyist groups and special interest?
Let’s hope so, if not our voices will be lost to big money groups that only have their interest at heart which is profit. Most corporations would campaign for less regulations in their industry so they can spend less to earn more. The question that we must ask ourselves is “Where do we go from here?”