The Sandspur

Issue date: 2/5/10 Section: Opinions

Media Credit: MCT Campus

People are allowed to make mistakes. Indeed, this is an unavoidable fact about being human. In the U.S., the Supreme Court stands as the last line of defense for reason and justice, and is comprised of nine non-partisan individuals whose sole job is to interpret the Constitution.

At least this is what the Supreme Court is supposed to be. I admit, the Justices are not perfect, as demonstrated in a multitude of poor decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) or Bush v. Gore (2000). However, in its most recent decision, the Supreme Court has exposed its true colors as part of a perpetual game of political tug-of-war, exposing the façade of absolute neutrality as a long-lost ideal.

On Jan. 21, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Court, in a heated 5-4 decision, ruled that corporations are to be granted the same rights of political speech under the First Amendment as individual citizens. Prior to this decision, election laws stipulated that corporations would be barred from using money from their general treasuries to engage in any form of political advertising for or against a particular candidate. The rules also provided timelines stating that all political broadcasts funded by a corporation must cease 30 days before an election.

The five conservative justices of the Supreme Court recently ruled that decades of election laws such as these were unconstitutional.

"These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship," Justice Anthony Kennedy aptly summarized in his opinion.

Citing the freedom to engage in political speech as a pillar of our democracy, the majority ruled that a corporation must be extended the same rights as an individual. Now any corporation may use unlimited funds from its treasury to finance and distribute political advertisements without any timelines, meaning Americans will be seeing the fiercest and most pejorative ads up to the day of an election.

This decision has struck a loud chord among a significant portion of the American people, many of whom believe this to be a sad day for democracy.

"The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his opinion, speaking on behalf of the dissent.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also had strong words about the "atrocity" committed on Jan. 21.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools