I've been trying to keep my eye on editorials lately, but this one from a few days ago slipped by me:
When individuals make political contributions, at least they are making a personal sacrifice of sorts. But a CEO initiating an ad campaign for or against a candidate will simply be making a business decision as to how his company's funds should be invested in light of the potential payback. If the payback is favorable legislative treatment that could mean big savings in, say, avoidance of pollution controls, then the decision in the boardroom is likely to be, "Go for it!"
Exactly. And it may end up being a more efficient expenditure of money (better for the bottom line) than an advertising or PR campaign that's product-related.
Congress, with previous court rulings in agreement, had kept corporations on a shorter leash because of the potentially corrupting influence of such corporate campaign spending. For the Supreme Court now to discount that risk of corruption or its appearance is reckless and unrealistic.
It's also a horrific example of judicial activism, which the Right seems to have set aside (for now) as one of their causes célèbre.
In North Carolina, the ruling adds weight to the arguments for public financing of campaigns. Floodgates opened to corporate campaign spending are the last thing this state needs. Any available steps to counter further special interest influence in elections should be taken before it's too late.
Did I already use the term, "Exactly"? I did, didn't I? Okay, how about, "You just said a mouthful."