Issue date: 2/4/10 Section: Perspective

Media Credit: Nicolas Floyd

Last week's State of the Union address made very evident that after a year in office, Obama's America isn't quite what. he thought it would be.

Obama appeared more than a little cranky.

He's not happy with the Senate for delaying everything he proposes. He's not happy with the House for bickering with the Senate. And he's especially not happy with the Supreme Court.

And on that last score, Obama might have good reason for his anger.

"Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," the president said.

What Obama was referring to was the recent (and very controversial) 5-4 Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance contributions.

We know what you're thinking: "Ugh. Campaign finance contributions."

Don't let yourself get turned off by legal babble - the decision basically says that corporations and unions now have the right to spend as much money as they want on their own advertisements to support (or tarnish) a candidate running for public office.

Until now, corporations and unions were prohibited from directly sponsoring campaign advertisements. Instead, those advertisements had to be funded directly by the candidate's campaign (as evidenced by the fine print on the commercials and the "I'm so-and-so and I approve this message" line) or by 'political action committees' (PACs).

Corporations and unions were, at least in theory, cut out of the advertising loop.

They couldn't spend their own money-instead, their individual employees or members had to donate their own money to a candidate's campaign or political action committee. These donations had spending limits, usually capped at $5,000 per person.

With the new court decision, however, corporations and unions can now open their pocketbooks and let the money fly. If they like a candidate, they can spend any amount to pay for advertisements to help that candidate get elected. Likewise, they can spend any amount to pay for ads that make sure another candidate's election bid comes to a crashing halt.

If an elected official stands up to a special interest group, the group can promise to spend whatever it takes to bring them down. Then they can keep their promise.

What's more, corporations and unions can now continue their spending bonanzas right up to Election Day, a significant departure from the old McCain-Feingold Act that tried to calm the airwaves for the final weeks leading up to an election.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools