Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law

June 30, 2009

(ChattahBox)—An FEC campaign finance case involving a highly critical documentary about Rodham Hillary Clinton, may be responsible for the overturning of a federal elections law that has been on the books for 60 years, banning political advertisements by corporations during campaigns.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the federal ban on political speech by corporations during election cycles, it could open up a new pipeline of cash and another avenue for corporations to use to influence elections. Corporations view the election ban as an attack on their rights to engage in free speech.

The case before the Supreme Court is Citizens United v. FEC. The conservative entity Citizens United, sought to televise its scathing documentary about Hillary Clinton during last year’s presidential campaign, making it available to cable subscribers on demand.

The conservative group claimed campaign finance laws didn’t apply to its documentary.

The lower courts disagreed, ruling that the film was essentially a long campaign ad that is subject to FEC campaign laws, requiring the identification of its financial investors.

The Supreme court was expected to issue a ruling in the case before its summer recess, but instead the justices requested the parties in the case to be prepared for additional oral arguments in the fall, focusing on the issue of whether the FEC campaign law should be overturned.

President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court to replace Justice Souter, Sonia Sotomayor is expected to be confirmed in time to sit on the bench for the landmark case, scheduled for September 9.

Source


Comments

7 Responses to “Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law”

  1. Old Man Dotes on June 30th, 2009 12:02 pm

    Corporations do not HAVE the right to freedom of speech. Corporations are “fictitious persons” who are effectively immortal; allowing them to exercise political freedom of speech gives them undue influence on the course of the nation, which harms the rights and interests of natural persons.

    Now, if a law is passed requiring the dissolution and liquidation of corporations 75 years after they are incorporated, with no provision for an extension, then an only then should they be considered to be on an equal footing with natural persons, and then and only then should they be allowed to engage in political speech.

  2. GlfBook - Financial News Daily » Blog Archive » Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law … on June 30th, 2009 12:53 pm

    […] more here:  Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law … Tags: business, campaign, campaign-finance, curiosity, election, entertainment, Finance, […]

  3. Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law … « Best Finance School on June 30th, 2009 1:20 pm

    […] View original post here: Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law … […]

  4. Supreme Court May Strike Down FEC Campaign Finance Law … « Tips on June 30th, 2009 8:22 pm

    […] Read mo­­re here: S­up­rem­e Co­urt M­ay­ S­trike D­o­wn FEC Cam­p&#… […]

  5. ram on July 1st, 2009 3:06 am

    corporations may be misuse the elections by means of elections…

  6. Supreme Court May Strike Down Fec Campaign Finance Law … on October 4th, 2009 4:26 pm

    […] (ChattahBox)—An FEC campaign finance case involving a highly critical documentary about Rodham Hillary Clinton, may be responsible for the overturning of a.Continue […]

  7. Supreme Court May Strike Down Fec Campaign Finance Law … on October 5th, 2009 4:11 pm

    […] (ChattahBox)—An FEC campaign finance case involving a highly critical documentary about Rodham Hillary Clinton, may be responsible for the overturning of a.Next Page […]

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.