January 25, 2010 by
Filed under ,
In the supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit corporations’ independent spending during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. This is in effect a , which has been criticized as a .
Under the law, corporations would still be required to be open and transparent. Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that he hopes the internet and prompt disclosure will “provide […] citizens with the information needed to hold … elected officials accountability for their positions and supporters.”
We should hold elected officials accountable. But why “supporters?”
Our friends at the notes that stems from attempts by the KKK to get membership lists of NAACP contributors in order to harass them and threaten violence. Sunshine Review sees the court’s decision as a win for free speech and confidentiality. Private citizens have the right to express themselves through donations and feel safe that their political speech will remain private.
After all, the Citizen’s United case started when a group of citizens wanted to air a documentary against then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Supporters of Clinton may be sympathetic to attempts to remove the shield of privacy for these citizens. But would they feel the same if the documentary were about another presidential candidate? Or a policy issue they support?
The same law that protects corporate donors would protect civil right leaders. This was a win for free speech.